[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!

[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.

[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.

[nirvAnA]

kelly dont lock it this thread is cute lol

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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