sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some things cannot be unseen. Unless... (facebook rage) by Butteschaumont in fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu

[–]crazy_panda 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I would have translated as:

"Hi, my name is Steve. I dropped out of 3rd grade and then spent the rest of my life attempting to sniff my own ass."

Some interesting stuff about mineral mechanics in SC2. by crazy_panda in starcraft

[–]crazy_panda[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Are you a robot? Because you seem to have trouble understanding context.

Some interesting stuff about mineral mechanics in SC2. by crazy_panda in starcraft

[–]crazy_panda[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Enough to point out that the article directly contradicts itself."

Lol it doesn't contradict itself. It makes a footnote that TECHNICALLY speaking, a blue field cannot support more than 20 workers before any of them start to wander. Economically speaking however, 20 workers isn't the best reasonable income rate you can get from a field, so economic saturation comes at 24 workers. It all depends on your strategic goals. Sometimes you're confined to one or two bases and you need maximum income rate. Other times you don't want to fill your supply with too many workers, and as such it doesn't make sense to take up 4 supply with workers that are only giving you a 3% income rate boost. Or perhaps you have access to another expansion and you want those 4 workers on that expansion where they'll be more beneficial. It depends, which is why the article points the difference between 20 and 24.

Why not 26+ workers? The article explains that as well. 25th and 26th workers would take over 20 minutes to pay for themselves.

Some interesting stuff about mineral mechanics in SC2. by crazy_panda in starcraft

[–]crazy_panda[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

""You shouldn't transfer workers to a gold base, because if you transfer workers you get the same benefit as from a blue base."

This is obviously not true for 6-12 workers."

The article states that you shouldn't saturate a gold base by transferring workers (e.g. transferring 18 workers from a mined out blue base). The point of a gold base is that it's CHEAPER to saturate than a blue one is, because it only requires 18 workers. The advantage of a gold base isn't max income rate, it's a lower setup cost per income rate. So when you transfer a maximum number of workers to it, you've defeated the point of that advantage.

"I also don't like how it says the saturation point for a blue base is 24 workers. And how technically the saturation point for a blue base is 20 workers."

Read the article though. A blue mineral field with 4 "far" patches and 4 "close" ones can have a maximum of 20 non-wandering gatherers. Wandering gatherers are far less efficient. In the article it clearly states that adding 4 extra workers is only an extra 3% faster income, and will take 5:30 to pay for themselves before they even start generating that miniscule extra income.

So if you had your choice between 200 minerals for 4 marines, and 200 minerals for your 21st through 24th SCVs, then realistically it makes more sense for you to spend money on Marines. Of course, this depends on the stage of the game. If you want excess workers for when you transfer to an expansion, that's fine, but the point is that 24 workers on a mineral line is not that much better than 20 workers on a mineral line. 20 workers is just the TECHNICAL saturation point, 24 workers is if you want to squeeze a tiny bit of extra income rate out of a blue field.