[Uglymutt]

I do a lot of maths at uni, but this just makes my head hurt....
I think Maynarde summed it up pretty well.

[TcaTX]

Sac ovie, scout base, know whats coming, prepare, win. Ladder points>supply/minerals...


I must be retarded too (jks jks jks) because I see your logic/point =(

[HaNdFisH]

I tried really hard in this thread

[nGenLight]

holy shit

is this a troll

[crAzerk]

This problem is going to be on my mind for awhile i hate you. These kinda math problems just fascinate my nerd brain lolololl.

[Muldeh]

You still don't get it man? Let me try to explain in a way you might understand...

You are saying the the cost due to scouting is 200 minerals because:
a) you build the overlord for scouting,
b) you build a replacement overlord for the scout overlord.

The part where you are wrong is either:
a) you actually built the first overlord for SUPPLY rather than scouting, then used it to scout and so the only cost due to scouting is the replacement overlord. OR
b) the first overlord was built purely for scouting, and therefore it is the only cost of scouting as the second overlord is built for supply.

You are gaining +8 supply and a scout either way. (The sacced overlord is +8 supply and later -8 supply.. giving a net of 0 supply, but it scouts, and the second overlord is +8 supply) You need to divide your costs between scouting and supply, not all to scouting, otherwise you are claiming to have gotten +8 supply for free.

PS: For anyone looking for a challenge, solve for me the cost of one larvae, and the cost of not scouting.
I expect the costs to change throughout the game and differ between match ups. So please, make some pretty graphs!

Quick Comments

ToRPandarine:

askin for graphs...ballsy..i like it :D

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Muldeh

You still don't get it man? Let me try to explain in a way you might understand...

The part where you are wrong is either:
a) you actually built the first overlord for SUPPLY rather than scouting, then used it to scout and so the only cost due to scouting is the replacement overlord. OR
b) the first overlord was built purely for scouting, and therefore it is the only cost of scouting as the second overlord is built for supply.

You are gaining +8 supply and a scout either way. (The sacced overlord is +8 supply and later -8 supply.. giving a net of 0 supply, but it scouts, and the second overlord is +8 supply) You need to divide your costs between scouting and supply, not all to scouting, otherwise you are claiming to have gotten +8 supply for free.

Technically cost due to scouting should include the cost of replacing what you've lost. Although technically you dont build two extra overlords in the game, only one due to scouting. If you can tell me how replacing losses is not a cost DUE to the scouting then I'll be ok with it. But what you've done is tell me why it isnt a cost to the initial scout, which isn't what I was talking about anyway. I really dont care if one overlord is for scouting and one is for supply, because that shouldn't be taken into consideration when figuring out cost due to scouting. Also, for some reason you're saying Im claiming to get the +8 supply for free even though I factor in the costs of the second overlord.

If you're right (If you can prove cost due to scouting doesnt include costs due to losing the overlord), then I can take away the second drone and second overlord from the maths and its only 100 minerals difference for a significant difference in effectiveness.

If you're wrong (If Im right on what costs due to scouting means), then I get to show a figure which looks more convincing.

Either way I win, and I realise how big of a problem it was to fight over such a small issue now.

Edit: Oh, and the part in your P.S. is pointless because you focus on scouting costs, not costs due to scouting, so you're telling people to look at the wrong figure and research that to further make my arguement look incorrect? Im kinda confused. Of course the scouting costs is 100 minerals, please dont try to mislead people.

Also just read Apth's post where he also talking about scouting costs

Originally Posted by Apth

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!

Yeah, you're right, although its not the figure Im talking about. I swear, thats happened like 50 times in this thread over time.

Quick Comments

TAminimat:

He's right your wrong

[Muldeh]

Lets look at it another way even..

You build an overlord -100 minerals. (due to needing supply)
You scout with this overlord, costing you 8 supply. (due to scouting)
You build a replacement overlord, costing 100 minerals, and giving you 8 supply. (due to scouting)

The first 100 minerals lost can not be counted unless it was built purely to be sent as a scout. In which case the fact that it provided supply is irrelevant, and the replacement overlord is it's own seperate cost.

PS: My ps was purely a challenge for people who wanted a real maths problem, of course it has nothing to do with proving you wrong here. I am not trying to mislead people. Actually I don't believe you could solve the problems i gave without solving the whole game!

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Muldeh

Lets look at it another way even..

You build an overlord -100 minerals. (due to needing supply)
You scout with this overlord, costing you 8 supply. (due to scouting)
You build a replacement overlord, costing 100 minerals, and giving you 8 supply. (due to scouting)

The first 100 minerals lost can not be counted unless it was built purely to be sent as a scout. In which case the fact that it provided supply is irrelevant, and the replacement overlord is it's own seperate cost.

PS: My ps was purely a challenge for people who wanted a real maths problem, of course it has nothing to do with proving you wrong here. I am not trying to mislead people. Actually I don't believe you could solve the problems i gave without solving the whole game!

Ok, I'll try to follow your logic. The first overlord we can assume would be used for both scouting and for supply in a real-game scenario. The reason is pretty simple, you'd want to get the most use out of it as possible while its alive, and having more drones sooner is always a good idea.

So because we used it for both scouting and for supply purposes, we cannot count it as a cost, due to the way we have used the overlord. If we decided to not use the overlord, then although we are actually spending the same amount of minerals on the overlord, in this scenario we cannot count it as a cost due to scouting.

Oh, I think I see where the problem might be, are you assuming cost due to scouting means the cost of everything post-scouting that occurred because of the scouting? I was including the cost of scouting itself, and that might be where the problem might be, although no one has actually said it that way regardless. Although, I did the same for both examples, so I don't see how that would be an issue ;S

[Muldeh]

If you are including the cost of everything that occurs post scouting, because the the scouting, does this mean you include the cost of making spore crawlers if you scout a stargate/dark shrine, or the cost of a baneling nest + banelings + baneling speed, if you see 3 reactored barracks?

[Digby]

I don't know if this has been said already, but did you take into account that the first overlord you get is free? So you're actually not losing 100 minerals, you're only spending 100 to replace that one.

[Muldeh]

Assuming your first overlord is the one you sac.

[nGenLight]

Hey u dirges dont question zergtastic he gm now alrite!

[zeffrin]

Tried to resist but I can't leave this one without contributing a thought.

Does a scouting overlord cost 200 minerals?

The reason this question is so highly debated is because it's not that simple a problem. In any case, no, the overlord costs 100 minerals. However it also costs a larvae and early game, making that second overlord costs important time.

I'm not going to post my entire thought process however I propose that the cost of overlords changes over time and cannot simply be measured in minerals or larvae, but must be measured in time.

If you sac overlord super early, like to the first stalker... building the second one may cost you some unit production over 10 seconds or so, and an all important drone.

However later in the game when you have a couple of hatches on a hotkey and more larvae than gas to use it on popping out a handful of overlords is no big deal and can be considered at this point to simply cost 100 minerals.

[Muldeh]

For the purposes of his argument (between overlrod saccing and evo chamber scouting) both require one larvae, and so they cancel out.

Quick Comments

zeffrin:

Yah good point, in this case overlords cost 100 minerals :)

[SirChristoffee]

Wait, has anyone paid specific attention to the opportunity cost? After all, what could you have done with an extra few lings? You could have made a spine! Maybe a roach warren even!

Also, when you do this, do you let the hatchery almost finish before canceling and placing evolution chamber? Would get a later scout on and I have only seen it done with immediately canceling the hatchery, so am curious on if there is a good reason for this timing.