michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts Last Edited: 2011-05-03 23:04:37 #1

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=178631¤tpage=2#22



====================



About a month ago there was a TL discussion on



So, I've created a new tool and would like to share it with the community. Currently it supports Protoss and Terran on 1-base, but I hope to expand that soon.



I hope this will help players in determining the success or failure of the initial timing aggression and make more informed economic decisions early in the game. I welcome all feedback (ESPECIALLY any errors in data).







Worker Economic Damage Analysis Tool updated 1/15

WEDAT 1.1.0



Purpose

This tool will determine three things:

1) the total economic damage incurred (both production costs and lost mining time) from killing a certain number of workers in a timing push before an opponent has successfully expanded.



2) the total economic damage from worker production delay.



3) the economic damage from scouting with one of your workers.



Changelog

+ Show Spoiler + - Added support for scouting worker

- Added support for Nexus chrono boosts.

- improved worker mining rate accuracy

- Added a worker Delay Calculator

- Added support for Protoss, as well as race selection.

- Removed 0,1-gas options. It is assumed that a competent player will take both gas by saturation time. May add it back in the future, but seemed to overcomplicate this chart and show correct, but misleading data.

- Fixed an error in workers 19-22 collection rates.



Operating assumptions

+ Show Spoiler + - Constant worker production.

- All geysers are optimal for 3 drones, not 4.

- All mineral patches are fully saturated at 3 workers.

- 3 workers on Gas if there is a geyser – 1-2 @42 gas/worker/minute, 3 @30.

- A fully saturated base is 30 workers, 3 per patch/geyser.

- Gas is taken optimally before 17th mining worker.

- A base/expansion contains 8 mineral patches and 2 gas geysers.

- All workers are mining all the time (none building, afk, etc).

Protoss

- Pre-Saturation time (time to produce 24 workers) is 5:48 with full chrono boosts.

- Probe Production Time is 14.5 Seconds (chrono-adjusted)

Terran

- Pre-saturation time is 6:48. (7:23 with OC)

- Orbital Command has finished (assumed between workers 15-17) by the time of attack. (~3:30)



Tool Limits

+ Show Spoiler +

- Does NOT account for killing mules (although killing a mule necessarily denies between 0-270 minerals).

- Does NOT account for attacks occurring before an Orbital Command is finished

- Does NOT account for SCVs building structures

- Does NOT account for future expansion between worker death and re-population.







Notes

+ Show Spoiler + - This does not factor in MULEs because it does not affect saturation, and therefore does not affect SCV mining rate or SCV mining income.

- Lumps together both minerals and gas simply as total resources. If the player instantly puts back 3 per active geyser, then the gas lost would simply be 0 (but this takes away from the mining time lost), and it’s impossible to know what the player’s decision would be here.

- All static gathering data is from liquipedia.

- It is assumed that after an attack on probes, the protoss player will opt to continue his decision-making with regard to how he spends chrono boosts.

- Hopefully, future implementation for zerg, multiple bases, high yield patches, and build/travel times.





Frequently Asked and Utility Questions (You might find this helpful!)

+ Show Spoiler +

What does PSI mean?

+ Show Spoiler + PSI Is the Pre-Saturation Income. Assuming constant worker production, any worker lost prior to saturation time (7:23 for Terran and 5:48 for 100% chrono'd nexus Protoss) will have an additional PSI cost for delaying that time by the production time of the workers.



For example, if you lose 1 probe at the start of the game, is the cost 50 minerals? How about the 50+ 10 minerals in lost mining time to replace him? Actually it would cost the Protoss 304 minerals! Is that hard to believe? For the first 5:48+14.5 of the game now, you're down 1 extra probe in mining, and that probe WOULD have mined 254 minerals.



How long does it take for this economic damage to be fully realized?

+ Show Spoiler + When we talk about "PSI" and resources lost, it's important to note that the full force of the attack won't be felt until the player is able to re-saturate his base. While the income is denied immediately, there is an exponential decay in the damage over time, with an expiry at re-saturation time. So, if you 6-pooled your opponent and killed half of his 16 probes, that denies him 1902 income over the 5:18 he now has to fully saturate his base. Much of that is of course felt immediately, but all of it won't be realized for 5:18.

How does the Worker Delay Calculator Work?

+ Show Spoiler +



The following is an example of the calculator in action to help grade this player's macro:

replay





As you can see here, the bronze player delays many workers and takes over five minutes longer to reach saturation than necessary. His workers afk during the first 4 seconds, costing him 18 minerals and it's all downhill from there. He also loses his scouting worker, which could have returned to mining.





He lost 1739 potential minerals by 12:55 due to poor macro. When you delay worker production by 1 second pre-saturation, you delay not only that worker, but every future worker until saturation. Thus, if you delay worker 7 (your first worker), by 1 second, you lose 1 second of potential mining time from workers 8-30 as well. This, you can imagine, compounds quickly.The following is an example of the calculator in action to help grade this player's macro:As you can see here, the bronze player delays many workers and takes over five minutes longer to reach saturation than necessary. His workers afk during the first 4 seconds, costing him 18 minerals and it's all downhill from there. He also loses his scouting worker, which could have returned to mining.



How does the Scouting Worker Calculator Work?

+ Show Spoiler + When you scout, you lose mining time. However, the value of that mining time depreciates over time as you saturate your base. This calculator will tell you, based on the length of time you are away, how many resources you lose.



Additionally, it may help you make a pivotal decision with your scouting worker's life!



Let's say you scout with your 9th probe after making a pylon. You decide after poking around a few minutes in zerg's base that you'll wait until his lings chase it out and kill it. You've just cost yourself 331 resources! Now, if you had been a bit more judicious, and left JUST before those lings popped, and rounded a nice 3 minute journey, you get to return that probe to mining, for a loss of only 126 resources. That's a difference of 205 resources by saturation! Given this information, you must now decide whether it's worth it to stick around a bit longer.





A properly timed Banshee harass (vs.P/T) occurs just after 1-base saturation, and often just before a successful expansion. How much economic damage does killing workers deal? What's the break-even point?

+ Show Spoiler + Well, if you only made 1 banshee and you never plan on using the Starport (150min/100gas) or tech lab (50min/25gas) for the rest of the game, your incurred cost is 350min/225gas for the port/tech lab, and then adjusted costs of lost mining time due to building (~35 minerals +/-5 depending on saturation and travel time) plus 37.5 minerals of supply if you plan on keeping your banshee alive. That brings the grand total to ~420/225 (645 total).



If you weight gas 1:1 with minerals (645), then you must kill ~9 workers for it to be considered a success. If you weight gas roughly 1.5 times (757.5), you must kill ~10 workers. And if you weigh it 2 times (900), you must kill ~11 workers.



If you made 2 banshees (~610/325, 935 total, 1097, 1260 ) those numbers are 11, 12 and 13 respectively.



What if you proxy'd the Starport vs Terran and straight tech'd it, such that the banshee arrives at 6:15 (costing you an extra ~35 minerals of travel time for SCV.) Now, because you arrive BEFORE his 7:38 saturation time, your terran opponent only has 26 workers. If you kill 6 SCVs, you've already reached the break even point. If you kill those extra 3, you've denied him DOUBLE your investment!



How long can you be supply blocked before it's worth it to use the calldown vs. waiting for MULE?

+ Show Spoiler +

Is 1 second just too long? Or is it worth it up to 10 seconds?



Supply calldown is ~110-125 minerals, as it requires a building scv to leave the patch (depending on your saturation at the time). We can assume that if you're blocked, you're going to build the SD as quickly as possible, so no roughly 5 seconds travel time + 30 second build time will be considered "lost mining time."



So, where's the break even point? Or does it depend on how badly you need army production?



This question is 2-pronged. If you consider this only from an army production perspective, then any supply block is too long.



If you ONLY consider this from "SCV block" production:





Supply Block Break even Time (Calldown vs. MULE) as compared to SCV count:

@15SCV - 17 seconds - 127.5

@16SCV - 19 seconds - 128.3

@17SCV - 19 seconds - 114.0

@18SCV - 23 seconds - 128.8

@19SCV - 26 seconds - 126.1

@20SCV - 28 seconds - 114.8

@21SCV - N/A



Notes:

- This is based off 1-base Terran. For 2-base, you would divide all of these numbers by 2, and it becomes NOT worth it only at an SCV count of 50.

- This model assumes you take your gas optimally (before 17th worker). That's why the "break even" numbers differ slightly in that range.







However, to FULLY answer this question, we need to look at the army perspective as well.



Having money is not useful if you can't spend it. If you can't spend your minerals, you need to produce an additional barracks/factory/starport or more.



So, how much does it cost you to become supply blocked? Using this link here, let's just take one possible build argument that uses all structures:



2 Barracks (Reactor, Tech Lab) and 1 Factory (Tech Lab) can constantly produce Marinex2, Marauder, Siege Tank.



So, supply blocking for 30 seconds PREVENTS you from spending: 568 resources. In order to compensate for that, you must spend at LEAST 150, which, in conjunction with the ~110 production cost of a supply depot, ALREADY offsets the gain from a MULE. And as we all know, MULE is just faster resources, not more. But the loss is real. (And even if you consider MULE income as static, real income, the cost is far greater to supply block and save the energy for MULE.)





TL;DR / Conclusion - So what's the break even point for Calldown vs. MULE? If you consider both income and expenditure, roughly 6 seconds on a full base, and about 3 seconds on 2-bases.



I don't understand/too lazy to read. Just give me a general rule!

Okay then. With the exception of 19 supply cap, it is almost ALWAYS (re: 99%) more efficient to IMMEDIATELY drop your supply calldown rather than make a MULE. EVEN if you're building a supply depot, if you're waiting longer than about 5 seconds, you should use the supply calldown. Is 1 second just too long? Or is it worth it up to 10 seconds?Supply calldown is ~110-125 minerals, as it requires a building scv to leave the patch (depending on your saturation at the time). We can assume that if you're blocked, you're going to build the SD as quickly as possible, so no roughly 5 seconds travel time + 30 second build time will be considered "lost mining time."So, where's the break even point? Or does it depend on how badly you need army production?This question is 2-pronged. If you consider this only from an army production perspective, then any supply block is too long.If you ONLY consider this from "SCV block" production:Supply Block Break even Time (Calldown vs. MULE) as compared to SCV count:@15SCV - 17 seconds - 127.5@16SCV - 19 seconds - 128.3@17SCV - 19 seconds - 114.0@18SCV - 23 seconds - 128.8@19SCV - 26 seconds - 126.1@20SCV - 28 seconds - 114.8@21SCV - N/ANotes:- This is based off 1-base Terran. For 2-base, you would divide all of these numbers by 2, and it becomes NOT worth it only at an SCV count of 50.- This model assumes you take your gas optimally (before 17th worker). That's why the "break even" numbers differ slightly in that range.However, to FULLY answer this question, we need to look at the army perspective as well.Having money is not useful if you can't spend it. If you can't spend your minerals, you need to produce an additional barracks/factory/starport or more.So, how much does it cost you to become supply blocked? Using this link here, let's just take one possible build argument that uses all structures: http://sc2calc.org/unit_production/terran.php 2 Barracks (Reactor, Tech Lab) and 1 Factory (Tech Lab) can constantly produce Marinex2, Marauder, Siege Tank.So, supply blocking for 30 seconds PREVENTS you from spending: 568 resources. In order to compensate for that, you must spend at LEAST 150, which, in conjunction with the ~110 production cost of a supply depot, ALREADY offsets the gain from a MULE. And as we all know, MULE is just faster resources, not more. But the loss is real. (And even if you consider MULE income as static, real income, the cost is far greater to supply block and save the energy for MULE.)- So what's the break even point for Calldown vs. MULE? If you consider both income and expenditure, roughly 6 seconds on a full base, and about 3 seconds on 2-bases.Okay then. With the exception of 19 supply cap, it is almost ALWAYS (re: 99%) more efficient to IMMEDIATELY drop your supply calldown rather than make a MULE. EVEN if you're building a supply depot, if you're waiting longer than about 5 seconds, you should use the supply calldown.

EDIT 4/30/11: Currently working on a new version that will support multiple bases (and hopefully zerg as well. If you would like to assist me in this process, you can submit a replay of a popular build that is more or less perfectly executed (or offer very specific expansion timings).====================About a month ago there was a TL discussion on the economic damage of workers lost but it never really reached a conclusion (at least, not one that satisfied me).So, I've created a new tool and would like to share it with the community. Currently it supports Protoss and Terran on 1-base, but I hope to expand that soon.I hope this will help players in determining the success or failure of the initial timing aggression and make more informed economic decisions early in the game. I welcome all feedback (ESPECIALLY any errors in data).This tool will determine three things:1) the total economic damage incurred (both production costs and lost mining time) from killing a certain number of workers in a timing push before an opponent has successfully expanded.2) the total economic damage from worker production delay.3) the economic damage from scouting with one of your workers.(You might find this helpful!) KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts #2 bump, made the following changes:



- Added support for Protoss, as well as race selection.

- Removed 0,1-gas options. It is assumed that a competent player will take both gas by saturation time. May add it back in the future, but seemed to overcomplicate this chart and show correct, but misleading data.

- Fixed an error in workers 19-22 collection rates.





More to come soon. KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

eth3n Profile Joined August 2010 718 Posts #3 Love the acronym and the obvious effort, hope this has some good utility :D Idra Potter: I don't use avada kedavra because i have self-respect.

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts Last Edited: 2010-12-23 03:23:32 #4 deleted, posted in wrong thread KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

palookieblue Profile Joined September 2010 Australia 326 Posts #5 On December 23 2010 10:49 mlbrandow wrote:

is there a bracket so I can find my opponent and start my match at 9est?

Wrong thread?

Weird considering you're OP.



Also, good job with the tables, me likey. Wrong thread?Weird considering you're OP.Also, good job with the tables, me likey. oyoyo

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts #6 bump, new version up.





Now offers a Worker Delay Calculator (Terran Only) to determine the economic damage of delaying workers pre-saturation (1-base only).



An example of this in use is posted under the FAQ. KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

Zephan Profile Joined December 2010 Canada 29 Posts #7 Quick question with your probe creation, does it factor in the fact that you can only chronoboost about half of the time, since chronoboost takes about twice as long to get back the energy than it lasts. Why hello there

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts Last Edited: 2010-12-24 17:31:59 #8 On December 25 2010 02:19 Zephan wrote:

Quick question with your probe creation, does it factor in the fact that you can only chronoboost about half of the time, since chronoboost takes about twice as long to get back the energy than it lasts.



Yes I did. A Probe takes 17 seconds to produce. You get 33 energy per minute, which is 4 chronos per 3 minutes. 17/1.5 is 11.33 seconds for a chrono'd probe, but of course you can't chrono them constantly. The math ends up working out to about 14.5 seconds per probe under constant chronos. naturally some probes are faster than others (depending when you chrono), but it all averages out if you use it constantly. Naturally earlier chronos are worth more than later chronos, but this is not factored in. (I do hope to add that in the future as part of a build order economic analyzer.)



If you don't use any chronos on your probes for whatever reason, you could use the SCV delay to calculate your minerals lost. I should have a working Protoss one up in the next few days (doesn't take much work, I just may not have time due to holidays).





If you are using the tool, this is why you'll notice for the same X workers and Y lost, Probe takes a smaller economic hit (MULEs notwithstanding). Yes I did. A Probe takes 17 seconds to produce. You get 33 energy per minute, which is 4 chronos per 3 minutes. 17/1.5 is 11.33 seconds for a chrono'd probe, but of course you can't chrono them constantly. The math ends up working out to about 14.5 seconds per probe under constant chronos. naturally some probes are faster than others (depending when you chrono), but it all averages out if you use it constantly. Naturally earlier chronos are worth more than later chronos, but this is not factored in. (I do hope to add that in the future as part of a build order economic analyzer.)If you don't use any chronos on your probes for whatever reason, you could use the SCV delay to calculate your minerals lost. I should have a working Protoss one up in the next few days (doesn't take much work, I just may not have time due to holidays).If you are using the tool, this is why you'll notice for the same X workers and Y lost, Probe takes a smaller economic hit (MULEs notwithstanding). KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts Last Edited: 2010-12-25 11:22:09 #9 So it didn't take long to add support for Protoss in the Worker Delay Calculator, but upon completion I noticed the numbers were exactly the same. Then I thought for a moment, and realized that the difference in SCV and Probe build times ( independent of chrono boosts) is canceled out by the shorter saturation time (less mining time). Whatever your target saturation time (with 0, 1, or 10 chrono boosts) delaying a worker will still cost you that same amount of mining time on all future workers, and it doesn't matter if you used any number of chrono boosts after the fact.



(Note that your absolute minerals would increase by using chrono boosts, obviously, but the maximum amount for your specific build would not be affected by it. Hopefully soon I'll have build order dependent support.)





In short, the Worker Delay Calculator now officially supports Protoss and Terran, even though it did already (without my realizing it) when I first posted it yesterday. KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts #10



(also posted in FAQ)

How does the Scouting Worker Calculator Work?

When you scout, you lose mining time. However, the value of that mining time depreciates over time as you saturate your base. This calculator will tell you, based on the length of time you are away, how many resources you lose.



Additionally, it may help you make a pivotal decision with your scouting worker's life!



Let's say you scout with your 9th probe after making a pylon. You decide after poking around a few minutes in zerg's base that you'll wait until his lings chase it out and kill it. You've just cost yourself 331 resources! Now, if you had been a bit more judicious, and left JUST before those lings popped, and rounded a nice 3 minute journey, you get to return that probe to mining, for a loss of only 126 resources. That's a difference of 205 resources by saturation! Given this information, you must now decide whether it's worth it to stick around a bit longer.









Thanks for any feedback! WEDAT 1.1.0 is now available for use. You can now calculate economic loss of scouting worker (as well as return vs. death). Also, I made a few adjustments with protoss to accomodate for chrono boosting the nexus from data presented in this thread . Lastly, I cleaned up some of the mining data to make it more accurate.(also posted in FAQ)When you scout, you lose mining time. However, the value of that mining time depreciates over time as you saturate your base. This calculator will tell you, based on the length of time you are away, how many resources you lose.Additionally, it may help you make a pivotal decision with your scouting worker's life!Let's say you scout with your 9th probe after making a pylon. You decide after poking around a few minutes in zerg's base that you'll wait until his lings chase it out and kill it. You've just cost yourself 331 resources! Now, if you had been a bit more judicious, and left JUST before those lings popped, and rounded a nice 3 minute journey, you get to return that probe to mining, for a loss of only 126 resources. That's a difference of! Given this information, you must now decide whether it's worth it to stick around a bit longer.Thanks for any feedback! KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

plagiarisedwords Profile Joined November 2010 United Kingdom 138 Posts Last Edited: 2011-01-14 18:06:10 #11 I love the concept but I think you are grossly overestimating the economic damage done. The reason is the time value of money i.e. Money now is a lot better than money in the future. This is a concept from finance but it applies to SC2. If you ask any player would you like 100 minerals now or 100 minerals in 5 game minutes, no player in their right mind would say 5 minutes later. Everyone would prefer to have the minerals now.



As an example, if I type into your model, I am Protoss and I had 18 workers prior to attack and 17 workers after attack. It says I lose 208 minerals. Well if your opponent lost 4 marines killing 1 probe most people would consider that as a poor trade from your opponent's perspective. When you are at 18 workers, 4 marines is their entire army! Yet according to your model 4x50=200 so a roughly even trade i.e. The reason for this is that even though you lose 208 minerals, you lose it over the course of a number of minutes while your opponent loses 200 minerals worth of army immediately!



In finance, you would address this issue by discounting your future cashflows with an appropriate discount rate. In some circumstances, there is a robust way of getting to this discount rate. However, in SC2, the correct discount rate to use is pretty hard to identify. If you had more money, you could have more army or you could have re-invested those minerals into an extra exapnsion its hard to put a value on either of these.



I have an idea of how to avoid this question. I'll build it into a model when I have time and add it here.



Edit: I misunderstood your model so the example I gave before was stupid. This is now fixed

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts Last Edited: 2011-01-14 18:15:09 #12 On January 15 2011 02:56 plagiarisedwords wrote:

I love the concept but I think you are grossly overestimating the economic damage done. The reason is the time value of money i.e. Money now is a lot better than money in the future. This is a concept from finance but it applies to SC2. If you ask any player would you like 100 minerals now or 100 minerals in 5 game minutes, no player in their right mind would say 5 minutes later. Everyone would prefer to have the minerals now.



As an example, if I type into your model, I am Protoss and I had 15 workers prior to attack and 14 workers after attack. It says I lose 4304 minerals. Well if your opponent lost 6 marines killing 1 probe most people would consider that as a poor trade from your opponent's perspective. Yet according to your model 6x50=300 < 4304 i.e. a big gain for them! The reason for this is that even though you lose 4304 minerals, you lose it over the course of a number of minutes while your opponent loses 300 minerals worth of army immediately!



In finance, you would address this issue by discounting your future cashflows with an appropriate discount rate. In some circumstances, there is a robust way of getting to this discount rate. However, in SC2, the correct discount rate to use is pretty hard to identify. If you had more money, you could have more army or you could have re-invested those minerals into an extra exapnsion its hard to put a value on either of these.



I have an idea of how to avoid this question. I'll build it into a model when I have time and add it here.



If you have 15 probes prior to attack, and you lose 14 workers, it costs you 4304 resources. If you lose only 1 worker, it costs you 254. You're absolutely right that killing 1 worker at the cost of 6 marines would be a loss. What you modeled using this tool is killing 14 workers. Certainly we should be in agreement that killing all those workers would be worth 6 marines . (Also, the input says "Number of workers killed" not "survived")



I do understand and appreciate the finance analogy, but I'm not so sure it applies to this tool whatsoever.





The cost incurred is not from some arbitrary point in the future, but is specifically defined as the time to saturate your base. Once saturated, you've reached your maximum income level (from harvesters) until you expand.



I guess I can try to make the input labels more clear or better explain them.







If you have 15 probes prior to attack, and you lose 14 workers, it costs you 4304 resources. If you lose only 1 worker, it costs you 254. You're absolutely right that killing 1 worker at the cost of 6 marines would be a loss. What you modeled using this tool is killing 14 workers. Certainly we should be in agreement that killing all those workers would be worth 6 marines. (Also, the input says "Number of workers killed" not "survived")I do understand and appreciate the finance analogy, but I'm not so sure it applies to this tool whatsoever.The cost incurred is not from some arbitrary point in the future, but is specifically defined as the time to saturate your base. Once saturated, you've reached your maximum income level (from harvesters) until you expand.I guess I can try to make the input labels more clear or better explain them. On January 15 2011 02:56 plagiarisedwords wrote:

As an example, if I type into your model, I am Protoss and I had 18 workers prior to attack and 17 workers after attack. It says I lose 208 minerals. Well if your opponent lost 4 marines killing 1 probe most people would consider that as a poor trade from your opponent's perspective. When you are at 18 workers, 4 marines is their entire army! Yet according to your model 4x50=200 so a roughly even trade i.e. The reason for this is that even though you lose 208 minerals, you lose it over the course of a number of minutes while your opponent loses 200 minerals worth of army immediately!





Yes, and this tool only gives you numbers. Using this data is up to you. This model doesn't draw any conclusions. It only presents data for you. I agree with you that trading 4 marines for 1 probe to drop 18/17 is probably a bad choice for the terran. Yes, and this tool only gives you numbers. Using this data is up to you. This model doesn't draw any conclusions. It only presents data for you. I agree with you that trading 4 marines for 1 probe to drop 18/17 is probably a bad choice for the terran. KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

plagiarisedwords Profile Joined November 2010 United Kingdom 138 Posts #13 I know I made mistake there, adjusted the post now. I think there is still an issue though.



If I put some strategy around this, As protoss I'm going korean 4gate. This involves getting 18 workers and 4 warpgates and then saving up enough money for lots of pylons in your base plus 400 minerals for 4 zealots. If you sacrificed 4 marines to kill 1 probe, my K4gate will be slightly less efficient as I am down to 17 workers. However, you've greatly reduced your capability of holding off 4 zealots. The fact that I lose 208 minerals to saturation is irrelevant as you will be dead long before I saturate my base.



I really like this though! It will be easier to discuss if I make something and post it. Also more positive to propose an alternative approach than trying to poke holes in yours!

Ponyo Profile Blog Joined January 2011 United States 1231 Posts #14 good stuff, seen some new Catz moves, in which he opens by harrassing with 4 drones against Terran. The Terran enterprets this as an all in and uses all/almost all of his workers to try to stop it, meanwhile catz gets some lings out and takes the easy win before the T can even get a couple rines out. ponyo.848

Sworn Profile Blog Joined January 2010 Canada 914 Posts #15 Wow.. I love you theres still a couple bugs but this thing is awesome TYVM "Duty is heavy as a mountain, death is light as a feather." CJ Entus Fighting! <3 Effort

michaelhasanalias Profile Joined May 2010 Korea (South) 1231 Posts Last Edited: 2011-01-16 04:04:26 #16 On January 15 2011 03:45 Sworn wrote:

Wow.. I love you theres still a couple bugs but this thing is awesome TYVM



Please share any you find! I'd be happy to fix them.







edit: wanted to add this too from another thread:



How long can you be supply blocked before it's worth it to use the calldown vs. waiting for MULE?

+ Show Spoiler +

Is 1 second just too long? Or is it worth it up to 10 seconds?



Supply calldown is ~110-125 minerals, as it requires a building scv to leave the patch (depending on your saturation at the time). We can assume that if you're blocked, you're going to build the SD as quickly as possible, so no roughly 5 seconds travel time + 30 second build time will be considered "lost mining time."



So, where's the break even point? Or does it depend on how badly you need army production?



This question is 2-pronged. If you consider this only from an army production perspective, then any supply block is too long.



If you ONLY consider this from "SCV block" production:





Supply Block Break even Time (Calldown vs. MULE) as compared to SCV count:

@15SCV - 17 seconds - 127.5

@16SCV - 19 seconds - 128.3

@17SCV - 19 seconds - 114.0

@18SCV - 23 seconds - 128.8

@19SCV - 26 seconds - 126.1

@20SCV - 28 seconds - 114.8

@21SCV - N/A



Notes:

- This is based off 1-base Terran. For 2-base, you would divide all of these numbers by 2, and it becomes NOT worth it only at an SCV count of 50.

- This model assumes you take your gas optimally (before 17th worker). That's why the "break even" numbers differ slightly in that range.







However, to FULLY answer this question, we need to look at the army perspective as well.



Having money is not useful if you can't spend it. If you can't spend your minerals, you need to produce an additional barracks/factory/starport or more.



So, how much does it cost you to become supply blocked? Using this link here, let's just take one possible build argument that uses all structures:



2 Barracks (Reactor, Tech Lab) and 1 Factory (Tech Lab) can constantly produce Marinex2, Marauder, Siege Tank.



So, supply blocking for 30 seconds PREVENTS you from spending: 568 resources. In order to compensate for that, you must spend at LEAST 150, which, in conjunction with the ~110 production cost of a supply depot, ALREADY offsets the gain from a MULE. And as we all know, MULE is just faster resources, not more. But the loss is real. (And even if you consider MULE income as static, real income, the cost is far greater to supply block and save the energy for MULE.)





TL;DR / Conclusion - So what's the break even point for Calldown vs. MULE? If you consider both income and expenditure, roughly 6 seconds on a full base, and about 3 seconds on 2-bases.



I don't understand/too lazy to read. Just give me a general rule!

Okay then. With the exception of 19 supply cap, it is almost ALWAYS (re: 99%) more efficient to IMMEDIATELY drop your supply calldown rather than make a MULE. EVEN if you're building a supply depot, if you're waiting longer than about 5 seconds, you should use the supply calldown. Is 1 second just too long? Or is it worth it up to 10 seconds?Supply calldown is ~110-125 minerals, as it requires a building scv to leave the patch (depending on your saturation at the time). We can assume that if you're blocked, you're going to build the SD as quickly as possible, so no roughly 5 seconds travel time + 30 second build time will be considered "lost mining time."So, where's the break even point? Or does it depend on how badly you need army production?This question is 2-pronged. If you consider this only from an army production perspective, then any supply block is too long.If you ONLY consider this from "SCV block" production:Supply Block Break even Time (Calldown vs. MULE) as compared to SCV count:@15SCV - 17 seconds - 127.5@16SCV - 19 seconds - 128.3@17SCV - 19 seconds - 114.0@18SCV - 23 seconds - 128.8@19SCV - 26 seconds - 126.1@20SCV - 28 seconds - 114.8@21SCV - N/ANotes:- This is based off 1-base Terran. For 2-base, you would divide all of these numbers by 2, and it becomes NOT worth it only at an SCV count of 50.- This model assumes you take your gas optimally (before 17th worker). That's why the "break even" numbers differ slightly in that range.However, to FULLY answer this question, we need to look at the army perspective as well.Having money is not useful if you can't spend it. If you can't spend your minerals, you need to produce an additional barracks/factory/starport or more.So, how much does it cost you to become supply blocked? Using this link here, let's just take one possible build argument that uses all structures: http://sc2calc.org/unit_production/terran.php 2 Barracks (Reactor, Tech Lab) and 1 Factory (Tech Lab) can constantly produce Marinex2, Marauder, Siege Tank.So, supply blocking for 30 seconds PREVENTS you from spending: 568 resources. In order to compensate for that, you must spend at LEAST 150, which, in conjunction with the ~110 production cost of a supply depot, ALREADY offsets the gain from a MULE. And as we all know, MULE is just faster resources, not more. But the loss is real. (And even if you consider MULE income as static, real income, the cost is far greater to supply block and save the energy for MULE.)TL;DR / Conclusion - So what's the break even point for Calldown vs. MULE? If you consider both income and expenditure, roughly 6 seconds on a full base, and about 3 seconds on 2-bases.I don't understand/too lazy to read. Just give me a general rule!Okay then. With the exception of 19 supply cap, it is almost ALWAYS (re: 99%) more efficient to IMMEDIATELY drop your supply calldown rather than make a MULE. EVEN if you're building a supply depot, if you're waiting longer than about 5 seconds, you should use the supply calldown. Please share any you find! I'd be happy to fix them.edit: wanted to add this too from another thread:How long can you be supply blocked before it's worth it to use the calldown vs. waiting for MULE? KR NsPMichael.805 | AM Michael.2640 | SEA Michael.523 | 엔에스피 New Star Players

PowerFang Profile Joined October 2010 Australia 4 Posts #17 Hmmm either i'm not using your tool correctly or i'm missing something - I have done the numbers on this aswell but yours are way higher then mine. I just want to understand your thoughts:



Put in this simple example:



Race: T

Workers Prior: 5

Workers Killed: 1



Ok so we have a case where 1 worker gets killed and each worker is still full value as there is less then 2 per mineral field.



Wouldn't the Total Resources Lost be equal to the cost to replace the worker (50 minerals) + the amount of minerals that worker would've mined in the time it takes to build i.e. ~ 12 minerals



So total Resource lost = 50 + 12 = 62?



When i put in these figures into your excel, i get 315 resources denied/losst



That seems ridiculously high?



Do i not have something setup correctly or am i missing 1 factor of the equation?

PowerFang Profile Joined October 2010 Australia 4 Posts #18 Hmm ok i read some more random google posts and it looks like your formula takes into acout lost income up until saturation - i'll have to run the numbers on that myself to see but i think its a bit misleading for the people who dont understand.



Might be better to seperate the cost into 2 values:



1) How many minerals will is cost me to get my economy back to where it was before the attack?

2) How many minerals will i not have access to over the next X minutes of the game because my worker died?



Kornholi0 Profile Joined November 2010 Canada 634 Posts #19 Let me sum it up for you people of wee little knowledge...

Harassment is good,

Scouting is good,

losing units while harassing is bad

Losing a scout is bad,

Using call down of supply is more efficient than mule for your first energy. (Which seems sorta odd I dunno if the instant gratification of the minerals is better than the mules greedy income per volley.) I use the mules volley more so than I use the mules overall income. I should really investigate this as to see if it helps against protoss' 4gate though, having that extra money fast would mean faster stim or maruaders. Team Channel: VTeX Team Co-leader: AGGhost 223 Stream: http://www.twitch.tv/agghost

Cyclon Profile Joined March 2010 United States 99 Posts #20 On January 20 2011 11:31 PowerFang wrote:

Hmmm either i'm not using your tool correctly or i'm missing something - I have done the numbers on this aswell but yours are way higher then mine. I just want to understand your thoughts:



Put in this simple example:



Race: T

Workers Prior: 5

Workers Killed: 1



Ok so we have a case where 1 worker gets killed and each worker is still full value as there is less then 2 per mineral field.



Wouldn't the Total Resources Lost be equal to the cost to replace the worker (50 minerals) + the amount of minerals that worker would've mined in the time it takes to build i.e. ~ 12 minerals



So total Resource lost = 50 + 12 = 62?



When i put in these figures into your excel, i get 315 resources denied/losst



That seems ridiculously high?



Do i not have something setup correctly or am i missing 1 factor of the equation?



No, because you are ALWAYS behind 1 worker until your base is saturated. You are losing 1 worker's mining time for approximately 4 minutes, at which point both you and an un-harassed player are equally saturated and there is no more income deficit. No, because you are ALWAYS behind 1 worker until your base is saturated. You are losing 1 worker's mining time for approximately 4 minutes, at which point both you and an un-harassed player are equally saturated and there is no more income deficit.

1 2 Next All