97 members have voted

  1. 1. What race do you play as (the most)?

    • Protoss
      36
    • Terran
      38
    • Zerg
      14
    • Random
      9


Recommended Posts

2v2 is a real crap shoot in terms of quality of players.

I've been playing some 2v2 with a friend to get warmed up before 1v1 matches and the quality goes up and down from match to match.

For example, in one game, we'll play against a team with our off-races and stomp them and then the very next match, we will play on-race and get stomped.

It's a bit weird. Usually, it puts my friend and I against slightly favoured opponents. Sometimes though, we'll go against favoured opponents who, for some odd reason, are in Diamond/Master. It's a little unfair when that happens because my friend and I max out at Platinum in terms of skill.

It's a bit weird. Usually, it puts my friend and I against slightly favoured opponents. Sometimes though, we'll go against favoured opponents who, for some odd reason, are in Diamond/Master. It's a little unfair when that happens because my friend and I max out at Platinum in terms of skill.

It happens as a test of your skills. Most people end up getting better, so the ranking system puts them against higher level players to see if they can win. If they do then there's a chance they'll move up to a higher league.

I don't think the ranking system would pit you against higher league players if you didn't show a higher win to lose ration. I think that's part of the math of how it functions.

It happens as a test of your skills. Most people end up getting better, so the ranking system puts them against higher level players to see if they can win. If they do then there's a chance they'll move up to a higher league.

I don't think the ranking system would pit you against higher league players if you didn't show a higher win to lose ration. I think that's part of the math of how it functions.

Ah, you're right. I'm aware of how it works but I didn't think it would go as far as Diamond/Master when my friend and I are in the Gold league. As for being promoted to a higher league, I don't think that happens. The way I understand it is a little different because of the whole "season" thing. Each season, you stay in your league division and based on your rank (performance), you either get promoted or demoted to a different league once the new season starts.

EDIT: It looks like I wasn't entirely right: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2580698045

Ah, you're right. I'm aware of how it works but I didn't think it would go as far as Diamond/Master when my friend and I are in the Gold league. As for being promoted to a higher league, I don't think that happens. The way I understand it is a little different because of the whole "season" thing. Each season, you stay in your league division and based on your rank (performance), you either get promoted or demoted to a different league once the new season starts.

EDIT: It looks like I wasn't entirely right: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2580698045

Team leagues are a total crapshoot still. I played the placement games and ended up in platinum, and I think 80% of the people I played against dropped. :wacko:

The seasons only lock towards the end. You can move up and down as long as the ladder isn't locked. Once it's locked, you can try to get to the top of your division, although there's really no incentive to do so, as of right now.

Team leagues are a total crapshoot still. I played the placement games and ended up in platinum, and I think 80% of the people I played against dropped. :wacko:

The seasons only lock towards the end. You can move up and down as long as the ladder isn't locked. Once it's locked, you can try to get to the top of your division, although there's really no incentive to do so, as of right now.

It's not that hard to get placed in Platinum when you're starting off. However, if you've been in Platinum once and you're not placed in a league yet... it'll put you against a player of similar skill.

Anyway, locking the season towards the end makes sense. As for an incentive, I thought players would be awarded a milestone based on their rank once the season ends: one for each bracket (top 8, 25, 50, and 100). Blizzard made a blog post about it here.

There's a free demo now so it's not really needed :>

Actually, the guest pass allows you to play online for 7 hours over a maximum of 14 days. It also gives you full access to the campaign. The demo, on the other hand, allows you to play some missions of the campaign as well as an unlimited number of skirmishes (Terran vs. AI).

Sorry, I don't have any replays. On the Starcraft Forums a carrier rush within 3-4 min (first carrier) is quite possible. Someone with over 200APM could possibly do way better. Carrier rushes are risky and Void Rays are way better.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/628074559

I'd still like to see a video lol.

How is that even possible? They must have been feeding each other resources. And even then, it's still a little hard to believe that they could pump out Carriers in 3 minutes.

it is impossible to get a carrier out in 3 mins. You cant send resources in the 1st 5 mins and it takes time to build gas, gateway cybercore, fleet beacon, stargate, and carrier and carrier is not cheap. Even with 1 carrier out, you cant do anything and a few marines can easier wipe out 1 carrier.

Check out this for details and updates on StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm. The screenshots look pretty good. It looks like they're going for a more RPG-like approach to the SP campaign. It reminds me of Warcraft 3.

Wow. For a very long time, I've had this issue of stopping worker production whenever I get attacked. As soon as that happens, I focus all my resources on units and upgrades. I don't build any more works unless I'm expanding. Lately, I've used any excess minerals on probes (Protoss) and it has made a big difference. I find that I have more minerals which I can use to make more gateways and zealots/stalkers.

Wow. For a very long time, I've had this issue of stopping worker production whenever I get attacked. As soon as that happens, I focus all my resources on units and upgrades. I don't build any more works unless I'm expanding. Lately, I've used any excess minerals on probes (Protoss) and it has made a big difference. I find that I have more minerals which I can use to make more gateways and zealots/stalkers.

you need 30 total workers each base to harvest to the fullest.

you need 30 total workers each base to harvest to the fullest.

From recent experience, I found the optimal number for mining minerals to be 16 workers per base (2 workers per mineral patch). Anything more and my army count would suffer. If I'm feeling safe, I'll get no more than 24 workers per base. And if I expand, I'll take the extra 8 workers to my second base so that both bases have 16 workers (for a total of 32 workers for minerals). Of course, I'd also have an additional 6 workers per base for gas.

From recent experience, I found the optimal number for mining minerals to be 16 workers per base (2 workers per mineral patch). Anything more and my army count would suffer. If I'm feeling safe, I'll get no more than 24 workers per base. And if I expand, I'll take the extra 8 workers to my second base so that both bases have 16 workers (for a total of 32 workers for minerals). Of course, I'd also have an additional 6 workers per base for gas.

3 per mineral patch and 3 on each gas is maxing out resource collection. As Zerg, I can usually do 2 full bases collecting minerals and gas, and a third getting gas, and then I turn extra drones into spine/spore crawlers as necessary. Terran, I max one, build a few at a second, send mules to the others, and have three on gas.

In general, you should always be building workers. Queue a few if you're forgetting to build them. They're cheap, and if you're hitting the food cap, you can send them in to repair (Terran), turn them into defenses (Zerg), or scout/send them to their death (Protoss).

3 per mineral patch and 3 on each gas is maxing out resource collection. As Zerg, I can usually do 2 full bases collecting minerals and gas, and a third getting gas, and then I turn extra drones into spine/spore crawlers as necessary. Terran, I max one, build a few at a second, send mules to the others, and have three on gas.

In general, you should always be building workers. Queue a few if you're forgetting to build them. They're cheap, and if you're hitting the food cap, you can send them in to repair (Terran), turn them into defenses (Zerg), or scout/send them to their death (Protoss).

The way I look at saturation is to select all my workers at one base, look at the unit count at the bottom centre, 2 rows = Decent Saturation, 3 rows = Maximum saturation. This seems to work well enough for me as a macro zerg who hates being on less than 4 base :<

3 per mineral patch and 3 on each gas is maxing out resource collection. As Zerg, I can usually do 2 full bases collecting minerals and gas, and a third getting gas, and then I turn extra drones into spine/spore crawlers as necessary. Terran, I max one, build a few at a second, send mules to the others, and have three on gas.

In general, you should always be building workers. Queue a few if you're forgetting to build them. They're cheap, and if you're hitting the food cap, you can send them in to repair (Terran), turn them into defenses (Zerg), or scout/send them to their death (Protoss).

3 per mineral patch is too much.

Yes it is the "maximum" resource collection, but resource collection does not increase linearly and your marginal gain from your 30th worker is not worth the marginal cost.

http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/cx7j9/i_decided_to_test_out_how_effec

Closer to 2.5 per mineral patch is the most efficient.

3 per mineral patch is too much.

Yes it is the "maximum" resource collection, but resource collection does not increase linearly and your marginal gain from your 30th worker is not worth the marginal cost.

http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/cx7j9/i_decided_to_test_out_how_effec

Closer to 2.5 per mineral patch is the most efficient.

Sure, but that's all hypothetically based on your workers not getting killed. In general, I go for the maximum number of workers on the first base, and when that's tapped out, distribute those workers to two expansions. Again, it depends on the race.

Sure, but that's all hypothetically based on your workers not getting killed. In general, I go for the maximum number of workers on the first base, and when that's tapped out, distribute those workers to two expansions. Again, it depends on the race.

I never said only build 2.5 workers per patch; I said have 2.5 workers per patch. If a worker dies, rebuild it.

And you shouldn't be fully saturating your main before your expansions. You should try to always maintain even distribution between your bases.

For example:

If you have two bases and 40 total workers, you should have 20 in each base, not 30 in your main and then 10 in your expansion.

3 per mineral patch and 3 on each gas is maxing out resource collection. As Zerg, I can usually do 2 full bases collecting minerals and gas, and a third getting gas, and then I turn extra drones into spine/spore crawlers as necessary. Terran, I max one, build a few at a second, send mules to the others, and have three on gas.

In general, you should always be building workers. Queue a few if you're forgetting to build them. They're cheap, and if you're hitting the food cap, you can send them in to repair (Terran), turn them into defenses (Zerg), or scout/send them to their death (Protoss).

It may be maxing it out but it's inefficient. As I said earlier, 2 workers per mineral patch is better. Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't make more workers. I continuously produce workers because I always plan on expanding. It also helps if you get harassed and lose workers.

2 workers per mineral patch = 16 workers

3 workers per geyser = 6 workers

total = 22 workers

Going by that, the optimal number of workers is 22. After that, you should only make more if you plan on expanding (which should almost-always be the case).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!