[Dogsi]

LOL... sorry for laughing at the OP, but your math is completely wrong.

Think of it like this. You are on 200 supply. That OL gave you nothing. You sacrificed it. You lost a unit that cost you 100 minerals. You lost nothing else. You don't need to spend anything.

Now, lets say you had 150 supply, all of it is used. You sacrifice an OL and need to build another one to replace the one you lost. It's not 200 minerals as you still have the OL, which you would have needed to build anyways if you hadn't spent that 100 minerals on the first OL. So again, you really only spent 100 minerals on the scout.

You can't double count the unit.

A comparable error in logic would be if you scouted with a zergling. That zergling cost you 25 minerals. What you would be doing is saying that it cost me 50 minerals because I had to spend 25 minerals to replace the lost one.

If you still don't see the distinction, think of it like this. I have a templar. It dies. I warp in another one. Applying the same logic as before, the previous high templar cost me 100/300 (templars are 50/150 right?).

Now, lets continue that logic a few times. Warp in templar, it dies, warp in templar, it dies, warp in templar, it dies, warp in templar, it dies. Now, since each templar is replacing a previous templar, using your previous logic, that templar cost me 200 minerals and 600 gas.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Dogsi

LOL... sorry for laughing at the OP, but your math is completely wrong.

Think of it like this. You are on 200 supply. That OL gave you nothing. You sacrificed it. You lost a unit that cost you 100 minerals. You lost nothing else. You don't need to spend anything.

Yes, you're correct on the first point. But you dont want to go under 200 max supply for overlord if you lose your army. So you'd have to remake it. If you mean that you have made so many overlords that it wouldnt matter, well the replacement overlord has already been made then.

Originally Posted by Dogsi

Now, lets say you had 150 supply, all of it is used. You sacrifice an OL and need to build another one to replace the one you lost. It's not 200 minerals as you still have the OL, which you would have needed to build anyways if you hadn't spent that 100 minerals on the first OL. So again, you really only spent 100 minerals on the scout.

You can't double count the unit.

You'd be correct if it wasn't cost due to scouting.

Originally Posted by Dogsi

A comparable error in logic would be if you scouted with a zergling. That zergling cost you 25 minerals. What you would be doing is saying that it cost me 50 minerals because I had to spend 25 minerals to replace the lost one.

If you still don't see the distinction, think of it like this. I have a templar. It dies. I warp in another one. Applying the same logic as before, the previous high templar cost me 100/300 (templars are 50/150 right?).

Now, lets continue that logic a few times. Warp in templar, it dies, warp in templar, it dies, warp in templar, it dies, warp in templar, it dies. Now, since each templar is replacing a previous templar, using your previous logic, that templar cost me 200 minerals and 600 gas.

You dont have to replace those units, you have to replace overlords. For the evo chamber scout, you dont have to replace the drone, but thats usually when you're cheesing. Otherwise, you'd be remaking it, and thats staying true to the guy who started it on TL.net.

Originally Posted by SexyBobSmith

The way you are looking at it is wrong. You Spent 200 minerals on building 2 overlords but you still only spend 100 minerals on scouting. The 1st overlord is built for either supply or scouting. If its built for scouting then its 100 minerals spent on scouting no arguments there. The minerals spent on building the 2nd overlord is spent on supply. It not a replacement overlord as it will not be used for scouting, it is build specifically for supply, if its not (your dont need any extra supply) then u dont need the 2nd overlord and there is no need to build it therefore you still only spent 100 minerals on scouting.

If the 1st overlord was built for supply then used for scouting and you build a second to replace it, it is still only 100 minerals spent on scouting. This is because only 100 minerals is used on scouting and the other 100 is used to increase supply. You can look at it like this: the 1st overlord is built for supply so the 100 spent resources there is for supply, if it is then used to scout, the 100 minerals used to replace that overlord then is spent on scouting. The minerals spent on the first overlord was for supply and not for scouting, if it is the used to scout then the cost of scouting is the 100 minerals spent to replace that overlord. So even though you spend 200 minerals to build two overlords, you SPEND 100 minerals to increase SUPPLY and 100 minerals for SCOUTING. You cant have spent 200 minerals to scout because only one overlord is used for scouting, the other is in fact for supply and not scouting so you do not count the minerals spent on both overlords.

You'd be correct if it wasn't cost due to scouting. Notice how I copy/pasted that answer? Maybe I keep getting to answer the same replies.

Originally Posted by nard

:<
poor zergtastic.. no SEA love.

in any case, the replacement cost would never come in if the player decides to make an overlord specifically to scout right? am i making sense? omg... need to wake up some...

SEA can deal with it, they prefer my casting and tournament organising over this thread.

Hm, I think you're only dealing with a singular overlord. You create it, you sacrifice it in. Then you need to remake it. You really dont get a choice between if you want to remake it or not, so you have to acknowledge that you actually did spent that money. Then you can argue it gives you extra supply, well yes, it can between 0-8, but not guaranteed depending on what you have made prior to. This will affect the cost effectiveness of the overlord.

[Dogsi]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Yes, you're correct on the first point. But you dont want to go under 200 max supply for overlord if you lose your army. So you'd have to remake it. If you mean that you have made so many overlords that it wouldnt matter, well the replacement overlord has already been made then.



You'd be correct if it wasn't cost due to scouting.



You dont have to replace those units, you have to replace overlords. For the evo chamber scout, you dont have to replace the drone, but thats usually when you're cheesing. Otherwise, you'd be remaking it, and thats staying true to the guy who started it on TL.net.



You'd be correct if it wasn't cost due to scouting. Notice how I copy/pasted that answer? Maybe I keep getting to answer the same replies.



SEA can deal with it, they prefer my casting and tournament organising over this thread.

Hm, I think you're only dealing with a singular overlord. You create it, you sacrifice it in. Then you need to remake it. You really dont get a choice between if you want to remake it or not, so you have to acknowledge that you actually did spent that money. Then you can argue it gives you extra supply, well yes, it can between 0-8, but not guaranteed depending on what you have made prior to. This will affect the cost effectiveness of the overlord.

You don't HAVE to make the overlord to REPLACE the first overlord. You HAVE to make an overlord to make supply there's a difference. If you ignore that the first overlord gave you supply, you would have still made the second overlord, regardless of the first one, right?

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Dogsi

You don't HAVE to make the overlord to REPLACE the first overlord. You HAVE to make an overlord to make supply there's a difference. If you ignore that the first overlord gave you supply, you would have still made the second overlord, regardless of the first one, right?

Yes and no. Yes you your question at the end. No to you saying theres a difference at the start. You replace the +8 max supply that the first overlord gave you. You're struggling with knowing how an overlord sac works?

Originally Posted by SexyBobSmith

You keep thinking there is a direct relationship between the costs of the two overlords but there isnt. The cost of first overlord is not dependant on the scouting, that cost has already been incurred. It is just a coincidence that the one overlord is used to scout while another overlord is building. There is actually no cost reliationship between the two overlords.

Wrong. You make one overlord because you suicided the other overlord. You're struggling with knowing how an overlord sac works?

Originally Posted by Edrahil

OMG Sexybobsmith, you totally made me laugh out loud. Since you guys appear to enjoy this issue, how about this question:

I make a pylon to block a zerg's 15 hatchery. Said pylon is subsequently destroyed. Was the cost of blocking the 15 hatchery 100 or 200 minerals?

100. Way to say something completely off topic, we're not talking about minerals lost. (If only everyone realised that after I put everything in bold...)

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Wrong. You make one overlord because you suicided the other overlord. You're struggling with knowing how an overlord sac works?

??? Your still havent linked the costs between the two overlords in relation to scouting. I will ask you this what is the reason for building the second overlord? If it is not to scout then you cannon not say build it is due to scouting.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by SexyBobSmith

??? Your still havent linked the costs between the two overlords in relation to scouting. I will ask you this what is the reason for building the second overlord? If it is not to scout then you cannon not say build it is due to scouting.

I said cost due to scouting.

This means because of scouting.

I said you make one overlord because the other died.

If it wasn't scouting, I can say it is a cost due to scouting if it was caused by the scouting.

Originally Posted by XenoX101

My god, I can't believe people have invested this much effort on this craziness. Honestly if Zergtastic wants to believe it costs 200 minerals, or hell even 300 minerals then whatever, so be it. If he's still not convinced through 5 pages of people telling him he's wrong then really I don't know what could possibly convince him.

Zergtastic if you're reading this - and I mean no offense by this - I suggest you brush up on your maths and/or reading comprehension skills and re-read the entirety of this thread, because it has been clearly stated in many different ways why the overlord sac only costs 100 minerals and you should have by now realised the flaws in your logic.

This thread almost puts me off ever wanting to be any kind of teacher in my life ever; if I have to deal with kids even 1/10th as stubborn as this.

You are correct, it costs 100 minerals.

Thats not cost due to scouting.

If you can tell me why minerals lost = cost due to scouting, I'd be happy to change my mind on this topic. Because ultimately, that is what you are trying to prove, right?

If you're not trying to prove that, you're just trying to say that Im wrong without much insight behind it.

Originally Posted by cruxis

Why is this topic still even open?

Read the first post.

Originally Posted by saplingg

I think this is what the OP is trying to get at by saying "minerals spent = 200". But the reason most people don't factor that in is because they have to make an overlord every minute anyway, so you've only effectively spent 100 minerals outside of your standard production cycle.

Thats additional minerals spent, not total minerals spent. I could add a "total" sign in front of each and every time I say cost due to scouting, but I thought people would assume its there.

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

I said cost due to scouting.

This means because of scouting.

I said you make one overlord because the other died.

If it wasn't scouting, I can say it is a cost due to scouting if it was caused by the scouting.

Have you read my posts? I have shown you evidenece as to why the second overlord is built. Building the second overlord is just a COINCIDENCE of the first overlord scout/sac. The scouting has been achieved, there is no need to build that second overlord. You build it cause you want to build more units not due to scouting, the scouting has already achieved. Think of it as you are hungry, it requires 1 apple to be consumed to fix your anger but you actually indeed consume two apples. The ACTUAL Cost due to hunger is still 1 apple, there was no need to consume the second apple. The mere fact that you consumed both does not mean you can attribute costs of both to hunger. It is a coincidence that you consumed that apple when you were hungry, the costs and resources spent for/due to hunger is still one apple, the resources spent on second apple is just for you own satisfaction and merely a coincidence.

Since you thread is A MATHS PROBLEM. I will use some mathematics to solve you problem.

1 overlord = 100 minerals = +8 supply

Scouting/overlord sac = -8 supply = -100 mineral
The result of an overlord sac is -100 minerals therefore scouting cost/spent is 100 minerals.

The above conclusion can be further proven further down the road.

2 overlords = 200 minerals = +16 supply

1 overlord sac/scout = -100 minerals = -8 supply

total minerals spent/cost (200 minerals) - scouting/sac = 8 supply (you have 8 supply remaining after scout/sac
As we know 8 supply costs 100 minerals therefore
Scouitng = 200 - 100
= 100 minerals
Minerals spent and cost of scouting is 100 minerals.

The maths above proves my statement that only 100 minerals is spent due to/because of scouting/sac. The second 100 minerals spent is due to /because you want to build more units/supply. There is NO NEED to build a second overlord for scouting or because of scouting, scouting is achieved, there is NO NEED FOR A SECOND OVERLORD.

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

You are correct, it costs 100 minerals.

Thats not cost due to scouting.

If you can tell me why minerals lost = cost due to scouting, I'd be happy to change my mind on this topic. Because ultimately, that is what you are trying to prove, right?

If you're not trying to prove that, you're just trying to say that Im wrong without much insight behind it.

What the hell is this garbage? Obviously the cost of scouting is the amount of minerals you lose in trying to scout, why are you trying to complicate things more than they inherently are? You're like the epitome of a psuedo-intellectual, just accept that you're wrong and stop trying to weasel your way into being right by adding in clauses where they dont exist.