# Two bases at one mineral field

It is most effective if you have 30 drones at one field, but could you get more minerals, if you build two bases there, and collect from both at the same field?

• Only possible benefit I can see is that you could use another MULE to gather minerals a bit faster,but still it is lots of minerals wasted building another base just for MULE purpose. – Mentales Aug 8 '13 at 14:18
• two drones, one cup.. – DrFish Aug 8 '13 at 14:23
• @Arremer You would have that same expanded MULE access if you built that Orbital at another base site (or not at the base site at all), so I don't think that can even be considered a plus. – Raven Dreamer Aug 8 '13 at 14:37
• @rubo77 The optimal amount of workers pr. base is 22 total. 16 on minerals and 6 on gas. 16 workers on minrals is equal to 2 workers pr. batch. If you add a 3rd worker the efficiency will fall. The TOTAL amount of workers for you entire army would be 3-4 bases with 10-16 workers on each. – AtlasEU Aug 9 '13 at 7:18

No

First of all, if you have 2 bases near a mineral patch, your drones/svcs/probes will always go to the closer base (rendering the other base obsolete).

The optimal amount is much less than 30 drones (30 is the amount where it is not possible to harvest minerals any faster from the given mineral field).

In HoTS, a fraction is displayed above your command centre/hatchery/nexus indicating how many harvesters you have over a suggested maximum of 24 (for bases with 8 mineral patches).

• The optimal amount of workers is 16 on minerals = 2 workers pr. patch. – AtlasEU Aug 9 '13 at 7:18
• @AtlasEU I'm going to take semantic offense to that. What I believe you really mean is, it is the most efficient per worker. – Raven Dreamer Aug 10 '13 at 1:12
• @RavenDreamer I aint that good at English to understand you comments correctly, but. 16 workers per base is the optimal amount mining minerals. It equals 2 workers per patch. A 3rd worker isn't as efficient, so if that's what you mean - then yes that's what I mean :) – AtlasEU Aug 10 '13 at 13:57
• @AtlasEU My point is that optimal does not always mean most efficient. If you are late game, stuck on one mining base but with 40 workers, there's no reason to not stick all 40 workers on those 8 patches. (For admittedly marginal gains past 24) ;) – Raven Dreamer Aug 10 '13 at 15:20

So there are two issues with this proposition.

The first is a practical one - there are no maps in the standard map pool (or campaign maps) that one could conceivably build two command structures (Nexus / CC / Hatchery) in an efficient manner.

The vast majority of the time, there is simply no area to build on the far side of the mineral and gas line (hindered even further since the resources often concave in a circle towards the ideal command structure spot).

As TylerAndFriends mentions, workers will always go to the closest base structure, which prevents the 2nd structure from providing any advantage.

But let's assume that there is some hypothetical map in the future exists where you can build two command structure's equidistant from one or more mineral patches (a straight line of minerals, buildable on either side is the simplest example). So would those two bases allow an increase in the amount of harvestables?

The answer is no, because you run into the second problem -- harvesting is per worker, not per base.

Harvesting in Starcraft 2 does not care where the harvesters are coming from; only one harvester is allowed to be harvesting a mineral at any given time, with other workers forming an orderly queue behind them. So having a 2nd base (which would conceivably let you send more workers to harvest), would not increase your efficiency, because past a certain point (3 or so), increasing workers / patch does not increase efficiency.

So, due to both of these issues, it is never economically viable to attempt to harvest an expansion with multiple command structures.