[Satu]

Originally Posted by Kaz

One OL to suicide is 100 minerals, the end.

Correct. Not what this is about anyway, but correct.

[HDPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Kaz

Okay now phoenix just made it soooooooo much more complicated. One OL to suicide is 100 minerals, the end.

Hey hey hey, how can monster trucks and hot girls be wrong?

[cruxis]

Girls are always wrong.

Quick Comments

Dox:

BAM!

[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...

[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.

[Edrahil]

Dude, you're such an awesome troll! Mad props!

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Edrahil

Dude, you're such an awesome troll! Mad props!

Please do no derail the thread, this is indeed a serious matter.

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

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

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.

[Dogsi]

Here's another way to think of it. You spent 200 minerals and got scouting + an overlord. Since the overlord costs 100, the scouting must have cost 100.

[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?

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

just read this Oct 11,2011. LMFAO

[SexyBobSmith]

AHAHA, you have to ask zergtastic if it costs 200 minerals. I would say its 100 minerals. What cant be measuresed statistically is how fitting in an extra pylon in the early game affects your overall build and how it slows it down.

And i am happy ur are entertained cause i am too :P

[BordZ]

They were brutal at refuting your points omg. TL strategy section is just each person talking at the same time in the same room if you get my drift, I also have never got any good advice from there all they tell me is macro more in those words.

[Edrahil]

Wrong, please read, I stated "Was the cost of blocking the 15 hatchery 100 or 200 minerals" I did not say i lost 200 minerals, rather because of the pylon block, there are 200 minerals I can no longer use.

Here is the issue:

To do a pylon block, I make one pylon at the zerg natural, it dies after blocking the early expansion. I had spent 100 minerals towards that pylon block and thus have 100 minerals less than what I had originally. The pylon gave me +8 max supply while it was alive, and I could have used 8 supply that it enabled me while it was still alive, by making units.

Since that pylon was sacrificed, it has to be remade. This means that I spend another 100 minerals. The supply that this pylon gives me will serve the same purpose as the first pylon, and the supply that I haven't yet used I can now use with this pylon. The amount of supply used up on the first pylon will change the effectiveness of this pylon (If I didnt make any units while the previous pylon was sacrificed, then the second pylon will be more effective in giving me supply). Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you will be better off, if you make no units during this period, you will more likely be behind.

Now, if I spent 200 minerals in total on both the pylon and the replacement pylon both of which were required for this form of expansion blocking (whether early or not), then that is 200 minerals that I now do not have. It is not 200 minerals lost, as you still have the second pylon built. But its 200 minerals you can no longer use.

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Edrahil

Wrong, please read, I stated "Was the cost of blocking the 15 hatchery 100 or 200 minerals" I did not say i lost 200 minerals, rather because of the pylon block, there are 200 minerals I can no longer use.

Here is the issue:

To do a pylon block, I make one pylon at the zerg natural, it dies after blocking the early expansion. I had spent 100 minerals towards that pylon block and thus have 100 minerals less than what I had originally. The pylon gave me +8 max supply while it was alive, and I could have used 8 supply that it enabled me while it was still alive, by making units.

Since that pylon was sacrificed, it has to be remade. This means that I spend another 100 minerals. The supply that this pylon gives me will serve the same purpose as the first pylon, and the supply that I haven't yet used I can now use with this pylon. The amount of supply used up on the first pylon will change the effectiveness of this pylon (If I didnt make any units while the previous pylon was sacrificed, then the second pylon will be more effective in giving me supply). Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you will be better off, if you make no units during this period, you will more likely be behind.

Now, if I spent 200 minerals in total on both the pylon and the replacement pylon both of which were required for this form of expansion blocking (whether early or not), then that is 200 minerals that I now do not have. It is not 200 minerals lost, as you still have the second pylon built. But its 200 minerals you can no longer use.

Its still only cost 100 minerlas to BLOCK the hatchery. You say its 200 minerals you can no longer use and that is right but blocking the hatchery still does not cost 200 minerals because 100 minerlas is costed towards supply. Remember sacking an overlord and a pylon does not mean you have to build another pylon, it is only because you want to produce more units that you need to build more overlord or pylons. If you dont want to build anything you dont have to build another pylon or overlord just like anytime in the game. If you say you need to replace the pylon or overlord. Remember that scouting/blocking is already achieved, you do not need to more minerals to block/scout. It has already been acheived. If you want to build more pylons or overlords, it is for increasing supply and therefore is not related to scouting/blocking.

[HaNdFisH]

Lets follow two timelines, one where you make the pylon (Pylon) and one where you don't (No Pylon)

Pylon: Make a 100 mineral pylon, provides +8 supply
No Pylon: do nothing

Build now requires supply above current supply

Pylon: Make a 100 mineral pylon, +8 supply, can be delayed until first pylon dies
No Pylon: Make a 100 mineral pylon, +8 supply

Difference: You have to pay 100 minerals to get that scouting pylon.

Could consider it to be building a 100 mineral building that does not give supply, there is no magical double replacement cost due to supply use.

[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.

Quick Comments

Aean(::

you read a thread 6 months after it was made -_-

[Satu]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

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

On actually doing the evo-chamber scout: I still use it in ZvP, but I do it to block nexuses when I go 15pool 15hatch. It gets you really ahead earlygame if you get to their base first when they are doing FFE while going 15pool 15hatch.

On just doing an evo-chamber scout inside their main: Its silly because you have to bank a lot of money in the first place to be able to do it. in the above possibility though, you should be banking a bit of money to expand, so you can do it in that case. You could probably do it inside their base vs FFE or 1base toss, but its never going to be useful vs FFE timings wise, whereas it MIGHT be usedful vs a 1basing toss. Unfortunately, the maps toss would usually start off on 1base rather than a quick expand are ones where zerg should probably be going 14g14p instead to be safer against a lot of forms of 1base cheeses.

I dont really see how the maths in this situation doesnt work though, because both scouting routes are effective given a 1basing toss, and the evo chamber scout can kill a worker within its lifetime really easily. It can function as an evo chamber scout really easily and have about the same cost and usefulness as an overlord scout.

Oh, and I believe the main problem in this thread was people thinking I was claiming that 200 minerals had been lost over the scout of one overlord. Thats definitely not the case, but theres 200 minerals that you must spend for the food max to remain exactly the same from start to end. That means the first overlord is affecting the usefulness of the second one, which affects how useful of an investment the second overlord is. Because of this, it makes the evo chamber scout a lot more similar in usefulness than what some might think.

My reasoning for saying this is basically because people were stating the complete opposite, that the evo chamber scout was a lot more expensive and doesnt achieve as much. I just really wanted to point out that it can be just as useful as an overlord scout (if not more) and is pretty similar in cost. Of course, to do that I had to try and gauge how useful an overlord is for its cost, which is where this began.

[tl;dr] I still think Im right for saying what I said, people misinterpreted what I was saying a lot as well as why, and I actually use a similar form of the evo chamber scout to effective use still to this day.

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

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:

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

Zergtastic what do you think now!