[Satu]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=202876 for the thread in which I am concerned with.

Im completely redoing the OP so that it doesn't sound like a bitchfest. This is only because nirvana ordered kelly not to lock it. That had to be in bold to show my opinion on it, because I realised that this made me look kinda stupid, regardless of if Im right or not. I believe the maths in it should be correct now.

Heres the issue:

To do an overlord sac, I send one overlord in, it dies as a result of the scouting information I gain. I had spent 100 minerals towards that overlord, and thus have 100 minerals less than what I had originally. The overlord gave me +8 max supply while it was alive, and I could have used 0-8 supply that it enabled me while it was still alive, by making units.

Since that overlord was sacrificed, it has to be remade. This means that I spend another 100 minerals. The supply that this overlord gives me will serve the same purpose as the first overlord, and the supply that I haven't yet used I can now use with this overlord. The amount of supply used up on the first overlord will change the effectiveness of this overlord (If I didnt make any units while the previous overlord was sacrificed, then the second overlord 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 overlord and the replacement overlord both of which were required for this form of scouting, then that is 200 minerals that I now do not have. It is not 200 minerals lost, as you still have the second overlord alive. But its 200 minerals you can no longer use.

When comparing this to evo chamber scouting (making a hatch, cancelling, making an evo chamber on the creep), there is a 50 mineral difference. The drone costs 50 minerals, the hatch cancel costs 75 minerals, the evo chamber costs 75 minerals, the replacement drone is 50 minerals. The only reason I listed the replacement drone is because this is a scouting option, not a cheesing option. The replacement drone will most likely be made, and make no doubt about it, that drone is replacing what you previously have lost.

So, the 200 minerals spent of the overlord sac can be compared to the 250 minerals spent of the evo chamber scout. This is a negligible difference.

The argument against it is that the second overlord gives you +8 supply. It can, if you make no units. Otherwise, it can be a number between 0-8 on the supply it allows you to use. This means the second overlord could be not cost effective, but regardless had to be made. That is why it should be considered in the cost, as it could be 100 minerals you have essentially lost.

Sure, you can make two overlords at once, and raise the price up by 100 minerals, assuming you already have one overlord out to scout with. Because then, it is 300 minerals spent. The third overlord will most likely be cost effective though, and as a result, only the initial replacement overlord should be considered.

As a result of all of this thinking, you shouldn't consider the cost difference between the two methods of scouting, but rather the effectiveness. If you think one method is more effective than the other, use one instead of the other. The TL.net thread lists pros/cons of either method and can help you decide on that one. Or you could go with one you just prefer. I realise that majority of people will stick to overlord saccing because it will keep them in their comfort zone and that is the method the majority of players use.

Me discussing this has gotten me banned from posting in the sc2 strategy section on TL.net, as I did not address concerns correctly. I am not a maths student, but I believe that I NOW correct. Im not saying that it means that evo chamber scouting is better, I was only arguing against people saying that a whole extra 100 minerals lost was bad. Instead, I decided that it was minerals spent that should be considered, because the second overlord is a replacement, and may not actually increase you above the point of being supply capped.

tl;dr

+ Show +

Minerals lost (unit cost) for overlord sac = 100
Minerals lost (unit cost) for evo chamber scout = 200

Minerals spent due to overlord sac = 200 (with 0-8 supply added to max)
Minerals spent due to evo chamber scout = 250

Minerals spent is more important to consider and there is less of a difference between the two numbers. Thus, don't consider cost, instead consider effectiveness.

[Cute]

Oh man, I actually laughed out loud while reading that thread.

As for the maths, I have absolutely no idea. I'm so confused after reading that haha

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Cute

Oh man, I actually laughed out loud while reading that thread.

Yeah, looking back at it now, I derailed the thread by being correct.

[Crankenstein]

He used caps lock. His logic is immediately inferior due to that, no matter how flawless it may have been.

[cruxis]

I think the overlord would be built regardless, therefore, the cost of the first overlord shouldn't be equated into the problem.

IMO.

[UncleTom]

Does 1+1 equal 42, what makes the Sun and moon merge into one being. If a kringe bad manners in the middle of a forest and no is there to hear him, does he get out of bronze league. There are many questions in llife yet fewer answers, I have a feeling that with my help we can all find the truth within us all.

Quick Comments

Digby:

[TAminimat]

I think the way to look at it is if you are at 188 or w/e the supply for zerg is 2 before 200 and you make 1 to get to 200, you sac one, you need to spend another 100 minerals to get back to 200 so:

188 - 200 = 200 minerals
sac overload
194 - 200 = 100 minerals

therefore it costs 300 minerals

Not sure if you were talking about that but yea.. w/e lol

[Canx]

Yea I think you nailed it in your edited post. The evo chamber scout costs more minerals but less supply.

[Satu]

Another update: I now cannot post in the TL.net SC2 Strategy Forum, because of this. Lolwut?

[Aean(:]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Another update: I now cannot post in the TL.net SC2 Strategy Forum, because of this. Lolwut?

Did you get banned? o-o

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Aean(:

Did you get banned? o-o

I can post elsewhere, just not the strategy forums.

[ZergGirl]

Words cannot describe how hard I'm laughing.

[deL]

I think I just lost a dozen braincells.

[NvRossi]

i want to slap you upside your head with my dong

[x5_Potter]

+ Show +

Overlord saccing
One overlord = 100 minerals.

Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac:
One overlord to scout + one to replace.

Two overlords = 200 minerals.

Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting.

Sacrificed overlord supply = -8
Remade overlord supply = +8
Total overlord supply change = 0

I think this bit is wrong. You are at 50/50. Sac overlord. 50/42. Remake overlord you sacced + one to not be supply capped = 50/58. So sacced overlord would be -8 and remade ov would be +16?

[TADedvo]

I hope you know how retarded you are

[Donefor]

zergtastic, sorry to say this but you are wrong.

Think of it this way, when you sac an overlord. What does it take to get back to what you had before the OL sac ?

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Potthead

+ Show +

Overlord saccing
One overlord = 100 minerals.

Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac:
One overlord to scout + one to replace.

Two overlords = 200 minerals.

Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting.

Sacrificed overlord supply = -8
Remade overlord supply = +8
Total overlord supply change = 0

I think this bit is wrong. You are at 50/50. Sac overlord. 50/42. Remake overlord you sacced + one to not be supply capped = 50/58. So sacced overlord would be -8 and remade ov would be +16?

It depends on the situation though. If you were at like 50/58 then go down to 50/50 and back up to 58/58, you wouldn't need the third overlord straight away. Im not going to assume that.

[Satu]

You Tube

You Tube

Enjoy.

[x5_Potter]

I just used your eg. is the OP as my example, which makes it +8 and 200mins. If you start at 50/58 and sac then rebuild, you only spend 100mins and break even on your ovie supply.

[EveJeonSa]

Man this is hilarious. But yea my other friends said that you were wrong in some aspects

[HaNdFisH]

I think I need to extend your logic for you,

First you make an overlord and lose it scouting, 100 minerals

Then you remake that overlord for 100 minerals

But now you are behind by 1 overlord, so you need to make another for 100 minerals

Oh dear, you are still behind by 1 overlord, so you again need to make another for 100 minerals

This goes on forever!!!

Hence overlord scouting costs infinity minerals.

If you are actually serious (it seems you are judging by that video), then you need to consider this.

You pay 250 for the evo chamber scout and gain 0 supply
You pay 100 for scout overlord, lose it and then replace it for another 100. Costs 200 and you gain 8 supply.

This 8 supply difference is where you are getting confused, if you are actually serious about this.

Quick Comments

dazaris:

[ZergGirl]

Private youtube video

[Satu]

Unprivatised it then. I really cant make my mind up on this lol

[ToRDeathsFang]

This is so stupid, the maths in this equation is probably simple year 7 and you guys are going on and on and on and on and on and on about it, See where im getting at?

[Cute]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oLO24zCSN8

Enjoy.

You have actually made my night. Oh god hahaha

[PiG]

Are you serious dude?

Why are you trying to make a supply equasion.

Think of it this way: However many overlords u need, you build 1 extra and sacrifice it (or another ovie out on the map in its place). This costs you 100 minerals.

Edit: I watched the video and still believe ur logic is wrong. The overlord you remake still gives you supply. You lose the supply of 1 overlord only. Therefore you have lost 1 larvae and 100 minerals.

The logic is this simple and despite your graphs and stuff you are just overthinking it

[kellyMILKIES]

Bulbasaur is confused!

[kellyMILKIES]

I want to punch you through my screen.

[ZergGirl]

I still see where you are coming from Zergtastic xD

[Edrahil]

Mistake in Op's post

"Overlord saccing
One overlord = 100 minerals.

Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac:
One overlord to scout + one to replace.

Two overlords = 200 minerals.

Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting.

Sacrificed overlord supply = -8
Remade overlord supply = +8 (this should be +16, since you made 2 OLs, 1 to be sacced, 1 to replace the sacced OL)
Total overlord supply change = 0 (this then becomes +8)"

[nirvAnA]

lol at this topic!!

im with pig on this one
its just 100 minerals and thinking abt the supply just complicates stuff!

btw kelly Bulbasaur is such a cute name

[Satu]

Well, I finally worked out the problem, but its ******* rediculous.

The claim against me is that if you make 2 overlords, lose one, you're still up 8 supply max.

But you dont make 2 overlords at once that early in the game, because you fall behind in actual supply if you do. So thats wrong.

Making one overlord, saccing it and making another isnt the same, because you use supply up while you have the first overlord up. The 2 overlord example is useable if you dont use the supply available for your first overlord at all. Yet again, thats not really gonna happen...

Thats literally it. Unfortunately, I cant post that on TL.net because 30 people saying the above point is stronger than what I have to say.

I'll keep the video up for entertainment purposes.

[HaNdFisH]

Okay

So you say have a choice to either
A) Ovie scout
B) Do an evo chamber scout

Option A)
You make 2 overlords, scout with one lose it, other provides supply
Cost 200 minerals, have your standard 8 supply

Option B)
You make evo in their base, costs 250
You still need an overlord for supply though, so another 100
cost 350 minerals total

I really don't understand where you are coming from. Yes if you make 2 overlords and lose one you are up 8 supply that is true. If you are planning on losing an overlord scouting you typically make an extra one, this is where you pay the "cost" of the overlord and it is 100 minerals. This is similar to paying for the hatch cancel into evo chamber which is 250 minerals.

You can make the new overlord so that it pops before the old one dies preventing any supply block from occurring. If you also require an additional overlord to provide extra supply you can make that as well.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Edrahil

Mistake in Op's post

"Overlord saccing
One overlord = 100 minerals.

Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac:
One overlord to scout + one to replace.

Two overlords = 200 minerals.

Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting.

Sacrificed overlord supply = -8
Remade overlord supply = +8 (this should be +16, since you made 2 OLs, 1 to be sacced, 1 to replace the sacced OL)
Total overlord supply change = 0 (this then becomes +8)"

Yeah, I was wrong there. It does kinda depend on when you make units based on overlords though, which will decide how long the overlord supply will be useful for... Thats where most of the problems came from I think. I dunno, too tired now.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by HaNdFisH

Okay

So you say have a choice to either
A) Ovie scout
B) Do an evo chamber scout

Option A)
You make 2 overlords, scout with one lose it, other provides supply
Cost 200 minerals, have your standard 8 supply

Option B)
You make evo in their base, costs 250
You still need an overlord for supply though, so another 100
cost 350 minerals total

I really don't understand where you are coming from. Yes if you make 2 overlords and lose one you are up 8 supply that is true. If you are planning on losing an overlord scouting you typically make an extra one, this is where you pay the "cost" of the overlord and it is 100 minerals. This is similar to paying for the hatch cancel into evo chamber which is 250 minerals.

You can make the new overlord so that it pops before the old one dies preventing any supply block from occurring. If you also require an additional overlord to provide extra supply you can make that as well.

Actually tbh, you got the maths wrong there. If you're looking at minerals lost, its 100 to 200, not 100 to 250. Minerals spent is 200 to 250, if you replace the overlord for the scout and the drone for the evo chamber. If you look at the overlord option, you have 8 supply left to fill if you havent been making units at all.

Either way, its pretty close, and you can dispute 50 minerals or 100 minerals difference is made up for in the fact that the evo chamber gives better scouting and also a few different options.

[HaNdFisH]

Oh wait I see, you are adding on the cost of the drone again for some reason as well, I just used your 250 number without checking you had it right. You are adding the cost of both the overlord and the drone twice without needing to.

Lets look at the cost in minerals to execute these scouting methods irrespective of what else is going on in your build.

You have to pay 75 hatch cancel + 75 evo chamber
150 minerals, -1 drone, assuming you rebuild this drone, another 50
200 minerals

1 overlord costs 100 minerals

I'm not saying evo chamber is a terrible idea (I've done it on occasion to block the protoss FE nexus from going down and then scouting with the broodlings when they kill it) but the way you explained the maths was quite bad. You do not need to add the costs of the drone TWICE, nor the costs of the overlord TWICE.

The difference in minerals, ignoring mining time lost, variations in timing etc is 100 minerals, assuming you rebuild your drone.

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Evo chamber scouting
Drone = 50 minerals

Evo chamber = 75 minerals

Minerals lost from making then cancelling a hatchery = 300/4 = 75

50 + 75 + 75 = 200 minerals in total

Cost to replace the drone = 50 minerals <--- why are you adding this, you have already paid for your drone

200 + 50 = 250 minerals

Therefore, 250 minerals have been spent due to scouting. <-- and building an extra drone

Supply from losing drone = -1
Supply from remaking drones = +2
Total supply change = +1 because you now have an extra drone

[Roz]

i can't believe people are actually debating over this.... you make overlords for supply, u flew 1 of ur overlord over early and sacced it to scout, so you make 1 overlord to replace. Why would u count the cost of both? This is like grade 3 math, it's 100 minerals buddy... If you were up by 2 overlords, say your supply was like 50/66, you sac 1 to scout, it would be 100 minerals yea? This is the EXACT same thing except you weren't up 2 overlords but 1. You make overlords nevertheless, you didn't make it to REPLACE your overlord, u made it so you have the supply.

Quick Comments

dazaris:

[HaNdFisH]

Originally Posted by Roz

i can't believe people are actually debating over this.... you make overlords for supply, u flew 1 of ur overlord over early and sacced it to scout, so you make 1 overlord to replace. Why would u count the cost of both? This is like grade 3 math, it's 100 minerals buddy... If you were up by 2 overlords, say your supply was like 50/66, you sac 1 to scout, it would be 100 minerals yea? This is the EXACT same thing except you weren't up 2 overlords but 1. You make overlords nevertheless, you didn't make it to REPLACE your overlord, u made it so you have the supply.

It is quite easy to become confused over a small error in logic, something that is not simple to point out. The fact that the "maths" involved is trivial can often make it worse because it seems so simple and straight forward.

[HaNdFisH]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Actually tbh, you got the maths wrong there. If you're looking at minerals lost, its 100 to 200, not 100 to 250.

Correct, my bad for not checking your maths thoroughly. Probably didn't help with the misunderstanding here. Sorry for that.

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Minerals spent is 200 to 250, if you replace the overlord for the scout and the drone for the evo chamber.

You have already replaced the drone, so it is 200 for the evo chamber. You have also already replaced the overlord for 100, as above. If you wish to include another overlord in both builds that is another 100 minerals to BOTH, ie 200 vs 300.

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

If you look at the overlord option, you have 8 supply left to fill if you havent been making units at all.

You have overlords anyway, you can make a new replacement overlord to pop the same time the other one dies. This costs you an extra 100 minerals over what you were doing if you weren't going to scout. The production of overlords for food can be thought of as completely separate to the replacement of the scouting overlord and so this is not an issue you need to worry about, except maybe in the specifics of putting together a tight build order.

[HDPhoenix]

Basically bro, you're double counting. You're accounting for "opportunity cost" and "real cost" at the same time and its making for very bad math

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

just read this Oct 11,2011. I agree!

[Cosmos]

^ Lol at economics. And I don't think he actually considered opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost is defined as the next best alternative being forgone, which in this case could be anything considering it is hard to define what the best alternative is.

Ok I realize where your problem lies.

This is what you wrote:

Overlord sac = -8
Replaced overlord = +8
Supply change = 0.

This is wrong. It should be

Overlord sac = +0 supply, (say you're at 10, you made the sac overlord = 18 and after you sac the overlord supply becomes 10).
There is no change/negative in supply after your sac overlord dies because your sac overlord is considered an extra supply.

Replaced overlords = +8
Total supply change = +8.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by Cosmos

^ Lol at economics. And I don't think he actually considered opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost is defined as the next best alternative being forgone, which in this case could be anything considering it is hard to define what the best alternative is.

Ok I realize where your problem lies.

This is what you wrote:

Overlord sac = -8
Replaced overlord = +8
Supply change = 0.

This is wrong. It should be

Overlord sac = +0 supply, (say you're at 10, you made the sac overlord = 18 and after you sac the overlord supply becomes 10).
There is no change/negative in supply after your sac overlord dies because your sac overlord is considered an extra supply.

Replaced overlords = +8
Total supply change = +8.

Yeah, I admit thats wrong. That isnt where the original problem was anyway...

And even if what I was saying wasn't relevant and was overcomplicating things, I dont really remember people saying it that way. It was more insult-based than reasoning and evidence based.

[kellyMILKIES]

Originally Posted by HDPhoenix

Basically bro, you're double counting. You're accounting for "opportunity cost" and "real cost" at the same time and its making for very bad math

^ Wise words from wise man
Opportunity cost I love that word!!!


Now can I lock this thread??

[Satu]

Originally Posted by kellyMILKIES

Now can I lock this thread??

Yeah, I got what was wrong now. Phoenix summed it up in a sentence whereas about 2000 other words did not.

[nirvAnA]

kelly dont lock it this thread is cute lol

[cruxis]

Also, if the T/P have their army halfway across the map, and you send your overlord in, you can scout everything and not lose the overlord.

So really, the overlord method has the possibility to lose no minerals.

[TAriiChard]

I think you're better off scouting .. And then reacting to the all in that's coming you're way instead of pulling you're calculator out and punching in numbers.

[cure]

Oh god, how is making one extra overlord to sac for scouting so difficult to understand ?

[kellyMILKIES]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

kelly dont lock it this thread is cute lol

[XenoX101]

This is pretty embarassing, obviously if you lose an overlord it will only cost you an extra overlord to catch-up in supply. I think you are getting confused by the fact that zerg needs to keep making overlords, so you might end up building two at once to compensate, but you would have had to build at least one anyway - there's no escaping that.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

This is pretty embarassing, obviously if you lose an overlord it will only cost you an extra overlord to catch-up in supply. I think you are getting confused by the fact that zerg needs to keep making overlords, so you might end up building two at once to compensate, but you would have had to build at least one anyway - there's no escaping that.

That was the initial idea. Its just that some people on TL.net were saying the second overlord will give you +8 supply added to max, and thus is useful. This means that it shouldn't be considered as a loss in minerals, as it serves a clear purpose (essentially, not a replacement, but a gain). I soon discovered that isn't guaranteed, and can be anything from 0-8 supply added to max depending on unit production. It took me a while to work that out, as Im not a maths wiz.

Im surprised only one person has picked up on the idea... Im probably really bad at saying my point, so I edited my initial post.

Originally Posted by riiChard

I think you're better off scouting .. And then reacting to the all in that's coming you're way instead of pulling you're calculator out and punching in numbers.

Ok then, which way should you scout?

Then most will say overlord saccing, because they consider the 100 minerals difference when they are looking at the wrong numbers and considering those over effectiveness.

Originally Posted by kellyMILKIES

Thats what shes like when the screen is focused on the in-game action at GSL, and not focused on the Code A casters. I believe nirvana should be scared and I should forget the fact she put that pic up initially against me posting this thread. ;D

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

That was the initial idea. Its just that some people on TL.net were saying the second overlord will give you +8 supply added to max, and thus is useful. This means that it shouldn't be considered as a loss in minerals, as it serves a clear purpose (essentially, not a replacement, but a gain). I soon discovered that isn't guaranteed, and can be anything from 0-8 supply added to max depending on unit production. It took me a while to work that out, as Im not a maths wiz.

You only lose 8 supply from losing an overlord, so the worst case scenario that you are at 50/50, you would be brought down to 50/42. This means you are guaranteed to go back to 50/50 after building 1 overlord, and if you build a 2nd overlord, you will have over-compensated and gone up to 50/58.

Rebuilding the overlord you sacced will put you in the same position you originally were, and this only costs you 100 minerals.

I also noticed you keep mentioning that you 'lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies', this isn't true since the mineral 'loss' doesn't come from the unit dying. I think this is where you might be double-counting because you are considering a loss of minerals where there isn't one.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

Rebuilding the overlord you sacced will put you in the same position you originally were, and this only costs you 100 minerals.

I also noticed you keep mentioning that you 'lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies', this isn't true since the mineral 'loss' doesn't come from the unit dying. I think this is where you might be double-counting because you are considering a loss of minerals where there isn't one.

So, rebuilding the overlord costs 100 minerals, correct.

No, you technically dont lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies, I realise that. If said correctly, it'd be that you lose a unit worth of 100 minerals when the overlord dies.

Thats right, the first overlord was worth 100 minerals. Because you spent 100 minerals on it. Notice how I put the word spent in bold throughout the entire thing. Spent. Not lost (Although technically for the first one, it is spent and then lost).

How many minerals were spent to replace it? 100.

100 + 100 = 200 minerals spent.

You agree that you need to build the second overlord, and thats two overlords, which cost 100 minerals each. Why are you saying its double counting, if you are agreeing that two overlords are needed?

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

So, rebuilding the overlord costs 100 minerals, correct.

No, you technically dont lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies, I realise that. If said correctly, it'd be that you lose a unit worth of 100 minerals when the overlord dies.

Thats right, the first overlord was worth 100 minerals. Because you spent 100 minerals on it. Notice how I put the word spent in bold throughout the entire thing. Spent. Not lost (Although technically for the first one, it is spent and then lost).

How many minerals were spent to replace it? 100.

100 + 100 = 200 minerals spent.

You agree that you need to build the second overlord, and thats two overlords, which cost 100 minerals each. Why are you saying its double counting, if you are agreeing that two overlords are needed?

Ok I see exactly where you are getting confused. Tell me, are you building an extra overlord or are you just using one of your normal overlords to scout?

1) If you are building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 100 minerals upfront, but you will have a surplus of supply, so you will not need to replace this overlord (0 minerals) since it is a surplus, it is one more than you need.

2) If you are not building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 0 minerals upfront, but you will have no surplus of supply, so you will need to replace this overlord (100 minerals) since it was one of your normal overlords, there was no surplus.

In 1) you pay for the overlord upfront, in 2) you pay for it afterwards

You are putting the two together, claiming that you spent 100 minerals to get an extra overlord and spent 100 minerals to replace it, it is either one or the other..

I think what might be happening for you is that you are doing option (1) and getting 2 overlords, but then going crazy on building units without realising you have a temporary surplus in supply, meaning that the reason you have to build another overlord is because you ate into your surplus.

[HDPhoenix]

Sigh...

At the risk of continuing this rather tedious thread, lets look at this analogy

You have a ferrari. I have a monster truck. I run my monster truck over your ferrari, cause I needed to impress that hot chick next to your ferrari.

What was the cost of my ego to impress that hot chick? Well, buying you a new ferrari. Does it matter what it cost you to buy it in the first place? No, it doesn't matter. You could have gotten it free from your rich Dad but I would still have to buy you a new car. That's my only cost.

I.e. the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, NOT the initial cost. Don't double count.

p.s I like hot chicks and monster trucks

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

just read this Oct 11,2011. I agree!

[cruxis]

I believe Day[9] is doing a maths course at uni. We should just ask him and be done with it.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

Ok I see exactly where you are getting confused. Tell me, are you building an extra overlord or are you just using one of your normal overlords to scout?

1) If you are building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 100 minerals upfront, but you will have a surplus of supply, so you will not need to replace this overlord (0 minerals) since it is a surplus, it is one more than you need.

2) If you are not building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 0 minerals upfront, but you will have no surplus of supply, so you will need to replace this overlord (100 minerals) since it was one of your normal overlords, there was no surplus.

In 1) you pay for the overlord upfront, in 2) you pay for it afterwards

You are putting the two together, claiming that you spent 100 minerals to get an extra overlord and spent 100 minerals to replace it, it is either one or the other..

I think what might be happening for you is that you are doing option (1) and getting 2 overlords, but then going crazy on building units without realising you have a temporary surplus in supply, meaning that the reason you have to build another overlord is because you ate into your surplus.

Im not considering that. Instead, Im keeping it general. It COULD give you a surplus, it could not. I didnt say it will not.

Originally Posted by HDPhoenix

Sigh...

At the risk of continuing this rather tedious thread, lets look at this analogy

You have a ferrari. I have a monster truck. I run my monster truck over your ferrari, cause I needed to impress that hot chick next to your ferrari.

What was the cost of my ego to impress that hot chick? Well, buying you a new ferrari. Does it matter what it cost you to buy it in the first place? No, it doesn't matter. You could have gotten it free from your rich Dad but I would still have to buy you a new car. That's my only cost.

I.e. the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, NOT the initial cost. Don't double count.

p.s I like hot chicks and monster trucks

Yes, the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, correct.

Now go back to the begginning of all of this (My post in the TL.net thread) and note that I was saying cost due to scouting. This means that Im including the cost for the initial overlord and also the replacement overlord, because you have spent minerals on both.

Whether its relevant or not you can interpret yourself, but relevance of my topic is irrelevant itself. Its more about people saying that my statement is incorrect. Im just acknowledging the fact that minerals was spent on two overlords.

[HDPhoenix]

Technically, if it "due to", it includes all the cost before that. So include all your drones, hatches, queens and overlords, why stop at the 1 overlord? Include them all!

The cost of scouting is OVER 9000!!! (DragonballZ reference)

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Whether its relevant or not you can interpret yourself, but relevance of my topic is irrelevant itself. Its more about people saying that my statement is incorrect. Im just acknowledging the fact that minerals was spent on two overlords.

My monster truck crushing your car means that the Ferrari dealership has to be make 2 cars, the original and the replacement. Ok, I buy that arguement. But.. the dealership that has nothing to do with my cost of crushing your initial car ^_^. MONSTER TRUCKS RAWR!

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Im not considering that. Instead, Im keeping it general. It COULD give you a surplus, it could not. I didnt say it will not.



Yes, the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, correct.

Now go back to the begginning of all of this (My post in the TL.net thread) and note that I was saying cost due to scouting. This means that Im including the cost for the initial overlord and also the replacement overlord, because you have spent minerals on both.

Whether its relevant or not you can interpret yourself, but relevance of my topic is irrelevant itself. Its more about people saying that my statement is incorrect. Im just acknowledging the fact that minerals was spent on two overlords.

Alright, whatever, believe what you want to believe. I tried to show you the light as best as I could but you seem convinced otherwise. Nevermind! Can we close this thread please? it's probably the most frustrating thing on the forums right now.

[HaNdFisH]

Isn't it a bit of an indication to you that NO ONE who has put more than 2 seconds thought into this has agreed with you?

Even the OP in the original thread has been edited to be correct, 100 minerals vs 200 minerals.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by HaNdFisH

Isn't it a bit of an indication to you that NO ONE who has put more than 2 seconds thought into this has agreed with you?

Even the OP in the original thread has been edited to be correct, 100 minerals vs 200 minerals.

I've been saying from the start its 100 vs 200 minerals lost. I agree with that. Im looking at different statistics. Different. As in, not the same as.

Sigh.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by HDPhoenix

Technically, if it "due to", it includes all the cost before that. So include all your drones, hatches, queens and overlords, why stop at the 1 overlord? Include them all!

The cost of scouting is OVER 9000!!! (DragonballZ reference)



My monster truck crushing your car means that the Ferrari dealership has to be make 2 cars, the original and the replacement. Ok, I buy that arguement. But.. the dealership that has nothing to do with my cost of crushing your initial car ^_^. MONSTER TRUCKS RAWR!

1. Technically, yes. But between the two scouting options, you would assume the build is the same, to make it like a controlled experiment. That means you can take it away from either side.

Its like 2x = 2y. You divide 2 from both sides. Just think of the build up to that point as the 2.

To be honest, doing a controlled experiment would have been the best way of showing people that it was correct in the first place, by showing what happens in the actual game. Unfortunately, I dont have a screen capture program or video editor yet, Im waiting for my new computer before I worry about those. So it'd take like a month before I could reply to the original thread, and that would mean no one would care by then.

2. The dealership had to create both cars, and you had to buy both cars. The money was spent.

[cure]

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

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

just read this Oct 11,2011. I agree! lmao

[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...

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

So, rebuilding the overlord costs 100 minerals, correct.

No, you technically dont lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies, I realise that. If said correctly, it'd be that you lose a unit worth of 100 minerals when the overlord dies.

Thats right, the first overlord was worth 100 minerals. Because you spent 100 minerals on it. Notice how I put the word spent in bold throughout the entire thing. Spent. Not lost (Although technically for the first one, it is spent and then lost).

How many minerals were spent to replace it? 100.

100 + 100 = 200 minerals spent.

You agree that you need to build the second overlord, and thats two overlords, which cost 100 minerals each. Why are you saying its double counting, if you are agreeing that two overlords are needed?

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.

[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.

[Edrahil]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...)

[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.

[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.

[deL]

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

[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.

[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.

[saplingg]

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]

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]

Why is this topic still even open?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[cruxis]

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

[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.

[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.

[PiG]

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--

[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.

[SkyBreaker]

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

[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 -_-

[Dox]

this freAKING THREAD GAVE ME CANCER.

[syfMiley]

My chest hurts now

[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!

[Maynarde]

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

[x5_Bard]

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.

[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

[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!

[Maynarde]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!"

[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.

[ToRDeathsFang]

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

[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.