|
On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 03:21 woolly wrote: I suck at splitting anyways, I more often screw it up than get it right. Good riddance! and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever.
Yeah because a good split will guarantee you are a good player.
Dumbass.
|
On June 03 2010 13:36 GooseBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote:On June 03 2010 03:21 woolly wrote: I suck at splitting anyways, I more often screw it up than get it right. Good riddance! and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever. Yeah because a good split will guarantee you are a good player. Dumbass.
Well, it was a strong indicator in BW. I regularly studied replays of B+ level players who couldn't consistently do a perfect split, and B and lower players missed a worker most of the time it seemed :|
|
Hey now we can argue but we dont need to call each other names T_T
|
I don't really care. Feels like there are more important things to be working on.
|
To which resource patches did you send your workers when you did manual split? I'm fairly certain if your force your workers to collect from the nearest 4 you can out collect auto split by a small margin (~5-15 minerals).
I'll try to run some tests and see what I come up with.
edit
Are your times in real time or game time? This depends on what version of the build order tester you used. (nevermind with enough tests I could prove it has to be real time)
Also did you build more probes up to supply cap or just leave only 6 mining? (nevermind only read your description you state your probe usage in your table titles.)
Finally did you do multiple tests of each type and average them to account for resource arrival times? (I really doubt multiple tests were run as all data is divisable by 5 suggesting no averaging was done)
|
On June 03 2010 13:38 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 13:36 GooseBoy wrote:On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote:On June 03 2010 03:21 woolly wrote: I suck at splitting anyways, I more often screw it up than get it right. Good riddance! and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever. Yeah because a good split will guarantee you are a good player. Dumbass. Well, it was a strong indicator in BW. I regularly studied replays of B+ level players who couldn't consistently do a perfect split, and B and lower players missed a worker most of the time it seemed :| Yeah, but correlation does not imply causation. I was only a C- player in my short SC:BW career, and my splits were perfect -- but that's because I sat there restarting games for literally hours at a time until I got it right. The thing was, that didn't do anything to improve my play. The reason higher level players can regularly do a perfect split in BW is because the skills required to compete at that level are much greater than that which is required to do something as simple as a worker split. Get good and the perfect worker splits will follow.
For that reason I really think this is being blown out of proportion. That idiot saying B-B-BUT NOW THE BADDIES ARE GONNA GET A FREE PASS is making something out of nothing. Players will rank up because they improve their micro, macro, builds, strategies, etc -- NOT because something as trivial as splitting workers might suddenly be insignificant.
|
I, as well as Cluck, made a post a few pages back about how map and mineral placement can and do play a huge part in how splits affect your income.
The problem I'm seeing with these kinds of tests, is that the data that is collected is of, and therefore only relevant to, that player. This is why I purpose that those who are actually interested help turn this into a kind of research project. We would need samples from different people, of different skills levels, and of course different maps. This would help prevent misconceptions and one set of findings suddenly becoming fact.
|
i just no split causa Iam lazy, so it all works out then :D
|
This is probably true but the split didn't matter as much even in bw. You weren't "behind" by sending 2 drones to 1 patch, it always seemed comical when people mentioned it early on. Even if it created 8 mineral difference at some point it was meaningless because it all comes down to when you place your next building/make ovie and 8 minerals never mattered even the slightest (only if you 4 pooled)
|
I've always felt like getting a good split makes the difference between whether or not i'll have 50 minerals before the first worker finishes.
|
In the end, I really doubt it matters. If you send your scout out 1 second too early then it basically negates the insignificant potential bonus that you could have gained from doing a perfect split.
|
If there is in fact a difference it would effect the start time of your first production building by may be 3-4 game ticks so enough for top pros to make a deal about but not enough for anyone else.
Also I can't seem to replicate Buddhist's data so I'm temped to question it.
|
On June 03 2010 14:37 condoriano wrote: You weren't "behind" by sending 2 drones to 1 patch...Even if it created 8 mineral difference... You contradict yourself with the following statement:
...because it all comes down to when you place your next building/make ovie... You then go on to say
...8 minerals never mattered even the slightest. not having the correct amount of minerals determined when you could or could not build something. So having 8 minerals sooner meant you could build stuff sooner, and therefore execute your plan sooner.
|
On June 03 2010 14:46 darmousseh wrote: In the end, I really doubt it matters. If you send your scout out 1 second too early then it basically negates the insignificant potential bonus that you could have gained from doing a perfect split.
Exactly, in bw doing 9 drone scout vs 12 drone scout was infinitely bigger blow to your economy compared to a slight delay of 8 minerals which wasn't even offsetting anything (because you received either 16 or 24 minerals within 1 second while you were placing your first building, so 8 minerals being slightly late didn't affect the timing)
On June 03 2010 14:54 Zenzou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 14:37 condoriano wrote: You weren't "behind" by sending 2 drones to 1 patch...Even if it created 8 mineral difference... You contradict yourself with the following statement: Show nested quote +...because it all comes down to when you place your next building/make ovie... You then go on to say not having the correct amount of minerals determined when you could or could not build something. So having 8 minerals sooner meant you could build stuff sooner, and therefore execute your plan sooner.
Read my post above, you can test it for yourself. If you split at least 3 drones to different patches you will get over a 100 with no delay, because 4th drone carrying 8 minerals being slightly delayed wasn't needed to make your overlord/pool( obviously it has to arrive before the new mining cycle of the first 3 drones ends, which always happens unless you sent your drone behind minerals)
|
On June 03 2010 03:29 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 03:21 woolly wrote: I suck at splitting anyways, I more often screw it up than get it right. Good riddance! and another terrible player moves up in the ranks due to Blizzard's pathetic blessing. Fantastic. this is like the saddest thing ever.
Yeah because worker splitting made such a fucking huge difference in BW.Cry me a river buddy. You're probably the kind of guy that spends the rest of his free time practicing pencil tricks.
|
32 is a full cycle of 4 mining drones, then you only need 24 to make another drone so it doesn't matter if your 4th drone was delayed within one cycle. Let's see if you are going 4 pool: 32x6 = 192, 6 cycles, you only need 8 minerals from the new cycle to arrive on time.
|
Anyway thanks TS, I always intuitively thought that it made no difference and never bothered to split. Now I have the data to back it up.
|
Why is everyone responded to stuff posted near the start of the thread?
Condoriano, I'll concede that point about scouting.
|
This issue is not the actual issue. It is only an indicator of the actual issue. SC:BW was exciting because it had two major gameplay aspects: 1) Strategy 2) Skill
The first of which is shared by almost all RTS games, turn based games, board games, and many games of the like. A portion of Starcraft's gameplay is rooted in this (which is great!) but Starcraft is not a game that requires only a good strategy.
I've heard many an "rts" gamer gripe about Starcraft because they don't think a player should be able to do better in a game because they can click faster. Well, like most hobbies, Starcraft is something that requires mechanical skill to execute properly; skill which can only be gotten with time and practice. This is why I appreciate the game more than I would appreciate a "normal" game.
Mechanisms such as the auto-split and mass unit selection simplify the feats of the game and make what used to be spectacular things just ordinary. True, there are still difficult things that can be accomplished and hopefully many more to be discovered in the future, but the issue that auto-splitting points to is that the reward for accomplishing spectacular things has been marginalized in SC2.
|
I'm unconvinced this is has been tested enough to truly prove that the is no difference between auto split and manual split.
Using qxc's build order test it is possible using the six original probes and building only one and then stopping probe production to have collected 380 minerals by 1 minute real time
Also since all the data is perfectly divisable by 5 it seems that the original poster only ran the tests once and did not do averaging of multiple tests making the data have a level of error.
|
|
|
|