[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.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by SexyBobSmith

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.

Okay, lets say that making the second overlord is indeed a "coincidence". Well its still made every time an overlord sac happens. Why is this? Because otherwise, you'd be heavily supply blocked. Why? Because you lost some supply from the first overlord. So coincidentally, the overlord is made because supply was lost, assuming constant production was kept up. Of course, still only a coincidence, not because I want it to be that way, like you make it out to be.

And yes, there is no need to make a second overlord for scouting. But try to tell me why you dont need to make a second overlord because you sacrificed one. If you can show me in game, that'd be great, it could improve my game heaps.

Also, your maths is wrong. I'll copy paste it with the correction.

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 if you have produced no units at all). Assuming you have kept up production, you can have anywhere from 0-8 supply used on the first overlord initially. This will cause the second overlord to only give you +0 to 8 supply.

Scouting Overlord = 100

Minerals spent = 200 - (0 to 100 minerals)
= 100 to 200 minerals spent.

Minerals spent is 100 to 200 minerals and scouting is 100.

Next time, read the OP instead of posting incorrect maths.

Originally Posted by XenoX101

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.

How about you tell me how Im wrong instead?

Also, yes, the cost of scouting is inded the amount of minerals you lose in trying to scout. You are completely correct there and I can back you up on your opinion no matter what. That doesn't change anything about what I've posted though, since thats completely different.

Originally Posted by deL

After reading the updated OP you are either concluding that buying 2 overlords is indeed 200 minerals. In which case, congratulations. Or you are concluding that 100 minerals you spent on an overlord is 100 minerals you can't spend on anything else, in which case, I can't wait for your article about how using a larva for a drone means you can't use the same one for zerglings.

I still don't know why you insist OL scouting costs 200 minerals. You have to spend 100 anyway so it's only 100 extra and I don't see adequate justification for otherwise.

1. Yes, 2 overlords = 200 minerals.
2. Yes, if you spend money, you dont get it back to spend it on something else again.
3. Overlord scouting doesnt cost 200 minerals, it costs 100. Cost due to scouting is 200.
4. Uh, yes.

You scored 3/4!

[XenoX101]

Why are you arguing over semantics? If you agree with us then just leave it at that and stop beating a not only dead but bruised, burnt, mutilated and ravaged horse.

[HaNdFisH]

1 overlord = 100 minerals = +8 supply

Scouting/overlord sac = -8 supply. This DOES NOT make you lose 100 minerals.
Losing an overlord = losing 8 supply.
(If instead say you lost 100 minerals not 8 supply you would NOT need to make another overlord as you had not lost any supply).

Lets say you had used all of that supply (worst case), damn now I have to make another overlord for 100 minerals.

Minerals spent/cost/whatever-other-name-you-want-to-call-it = 100 minerals total.

Or how about this:

There are two actions you can perform
1) Make overlord: This costs 100 minerals and gives you +8 supply
2) Lose overlord scouting: This takes away 8 supply (-8 supply).

Perform action 2 and then action 1.

Initially say we are supply capped, 50/50 supply (your worst case)
Action 2 - Lose overlord scouting: -8 supply
Current supply: 50/42

Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 50/50

Total minerals spent/cost/etc = 100 minerals.

Now lets look at what happens if you have to pay for that initial overlord.

Action 1, make some units, action 2, action 1

Again initially 50/50 supply
Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 50/58, minerals spent: 100

Units are made to use up this supply

Current supply: 58/58, minerals spent: 100 (minerals spent on units not counted here)

Action 2 - Lose overlord: -8 supply
Current supply: 58/50, minerals spent: 100

Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 58/58, minerals spent: 200

Ah ha! We have spent 200 minerals just like you were saying. But now lets think about this a bit, what has changed since the initial start state?
Initial: 50/50 supply, minerals spent: 0
Final: 58/58 supply, minerals spent: 200

Hmm we have had a change in the amount of supply present. Now this can be represented by simply applying action 1 to the initial state.

Initial: 50/50 supply, minerals spent: 0
Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Make units
Final: 58/58 supply, minerals spent: 100

Oh to get to this state we had to spend 100 minerals even if we were not scouting. But okay, lets roll with your logic and say that the minerals spent is 200.

What happens if we perform the following operations?
Action 1, make units, Action 1, make units, Action 1, make units, Action 2, Action 1
This is just standard production of zerg units, with a scouting overlord sacrificed at the end.

Initially 50/50 supply
Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 50/58, minerals spent: 100

Make units
Current supply: 58/58, minerals spent: 100

Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 58/66, minerals spent: 200

Make units
Current supply: 66/66, minerals spent: 200

Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 66/74, minerals spent: 300

Make units
Current supply: 74/74, minerals spent: 300

Action 2 - Lose overlord scouting: -8 supply
Current supply: 74/66, minerals spent: 300

Action 1 - Make overlord: -100 minerals, +8 supply
Current supply: 74/74, minerals spent: 400

So total minerals spent is 400.

Wait a second, how can this be right? Does this mean the total minerals spent = 400? If this is the case we should probably include the costs of unit production into this as well?

As you can see it doesn't make sense to mention these other costs or mineral spendings in relation to scouting.

I too am interested in your background, initially I saw this problem as an amusing troll until I realised you were actually serious. My interest then changed to one of a personal challenge, as I imagine I will have to start taking tutorials in first year maths/physics soon as part of my PhD, being able to explain a simple concept to someone who really can't grasp it is the sort of skill I will need.

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

1. Yes, 2 overlords = 200 minerals.
2. Yes, if you spend money, you dont get it back to spend it on something else again.
3. Overlord scouting doesnt cost 200 minerals, it costs 100. Cost due to scouting is 200.
4. Uh, yes.

You scored 3/4!

At first your posts were at least genuinely providing some arguments. But now your arguments are like a little kid at a school yard. All you keep saying is 'no, you are wrong, i am right, no you are wrong' without actually providing any further evidence to enhance your claims. If discussions are to go any further you have to actually make arguments argainst people's findings and explanations and use evidence to back that up.

[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.