[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