[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.