SC2SEA.com - Starcraft 2 SEA eSports Community Site

**Maynarde** · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 6:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

Also, Im GM rank 100 now, I wonder if that will affect how people attempt to criticise what I've said now lol

CombatEx is too. Oh, and Zanooku ....

Satu · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 6:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maynarde

CombatEx is too. Oh, and Zanooku ....

They can still have reasonably good opinions on sc2 though, when they are not whining about imba.

Quick Comments

Uglymutt:

Fair point

Uglymutt · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 7:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

One more thing, I discovered something more embarrassing about nirvana when reading the quote at the top of this post. Look closely... Thats right, he asks questions with an exclamation mark:

:O Scandalous!
I can see the points you are trying to raise, kind of hard to put a 'mineral cost' on them though.

Satu · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uglymutt

:O Scandalous!
I can see the points you are trying to raise, kind of hard to put a 'mineral cost' on them though.

Its impossible to put a mineral cost on each technique because they have mineral costs that are set in stone ;S

The thing that is harder to gauge is how cost-effective the scouting is.

**Apth** · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

Also, Im GM rank 100 now, I wonder if that will affect how people attempt to criticise what I've said now lol

This makes me a sad panda. Reverse ad hominem ftl.

Quick Comments

Nemo:

Nasty you, I had to search what's the meaning of this latin sentence :D

ToRDeathsFang · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

I just read this whole thread for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it.

THREAD REOPENED AFTER 6 MONTHS HIATUS.

Zergtastic what do you think now! Curious on everyone's thoughts 6 months later. Pandora's Box has been opened.

When i first saw there was a new post in this thread i was like "F*ck another thread necromancer! negative rep!!"

deL · Tue, 29th-Mar-2011, 6:34 PM

tl;dr should just say "I'm a retard"

saplingg · Wed, 30th-Mar-2011, 1:50 AM

I skimmed through a few pages of this thread, and I'm not sure I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how overlord saccing works:

I play Starcraft 2.

I play Zerg.

I have an income of 500 minerals per minute.

I build 16 zerglings every minute. That costs me 8*50 = 400 minerals every minute, and 8 supply every minute.

I have 100 minerals of income left, which I use to make the overlord which enables said zergling production.

This happens every minute.
-----

On minute 10, I build two overlords and sac one.

That means I only have 300 minerals to spend on zerglings, meaning I can only build 12 zerglings on minute 10. My supply, then, is two less than the maximum.

I spent an extra 100 minerals for scouting, and now I have four less zerglings.

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.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

XenoX101 · Wed, 30th-Mar-2011, 3:12 AM

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.

cruxis · Wed, 30th-Mar-2011, 8:47 AM

Why is this topic still even open?

deL · Wed, 30th-Mar-2011, 10:03 AM

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.

cruxis · Wed, 30th-Mar-2011, 1:09 PM

Mate, you're arguing with a brick wall. The sooner this topic dies the better.

**PiG** · Thu, 31st-Mar-2011, 1:36 AM

Zergtastic may i ask what your background in mathematics is? Or logic, reason or semantics? Just curious cos this thread makes me smile angrily and I wish to understand more about the creature that would spawn such a humorous monstrosity?

Quick Comments

Dox:

HAHAHAHA OSHI--

**SkyBreaker** · Thu, 31st-Mar-2011, 12:35 PM

This thread should've ended a long time ago, after Phoenix (if I remember correctly) explained it. Thread closed.

**Dox** · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 11:14 AM

this freAKING THREAD GAVE ME CANCER.

syfMiley · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 1:47 PM

My chest hurts now

**Apth** · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 2:12 PM

This thread made my day.

The following is largely an excuse to type some more on my new 6Gv2.

Scenario One
You have 300 minerals.
You make an Overlord.
The Overlord doesn't die.
You have 300 minerals and 1 Overlord.

Scenario Two
You have 300 minerals.
You make an Overlord.
The Overlord dies.
You make another Overlord.
You have 200 minerals and 1 Overlord.

The difference between the Overlord dying and not dying is 100 minerals.

Yay math!

**Maynarde** · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 2:27 PM

I ... Just ....

I can't ... I don't even ...

My head ... the amount of fail is just so ...

Quick Comments

	Apth:	giggle
	TcaTX:	Exactly
	ToRPandarine:	wht Apth said :P

ToRDeathsFang · Wed, 12th-Oct-2011, 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maynarde

I ... Just ....

I can't ... I don't even ...

My head ... the amount of fail is just so ...

Quoting this for necessary emphasis

x5_Bard · Tue, 11th-Oct-2011, 2:36 PM

This isn't really a maths problem. Its a perspective problem. You are correct that the total minerals spent is 200 for both overlords. What people are arguing is minerals lost by sacrificing the overlord for scouting purposes.

In terms of Minerals lost the price of the overlord sac is only 100. Due to the fact that you still have a working overlord after the first has been sacrificed, although you have spent 200 minerals you have only lost 100 of those minerals. The other 100 is invested in the second overlord and as long as it does not die that 100 mineral investment is useful.

For an evo scout you have spent and lost 250 minerals. There is no useful investment with this route.

Thus the difference in minerals lost is 150. And in minerals spent is 50.

Minerals spent =/= Minerals lost.