[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.