|
I am going to say that a scan costs 270 minerals indeed. edit: I now rephrase it to "A scan costs about 270 minerals". edit again: Since you cannot buy the scan directly for 270 minerals, some hesitate to say that the scan costs 270 minerals. (You cannot pay the OC 270 minerals, you need to use 50 energy.) Of course this is true, but my main point is that the scan is not free.
If a scan would be really free, you would have no disadvantage if you waste it. Since no good player just waste a scan, it is not free. It also depends on a limited ressource, the OC energy.
Now does the scan cost just 50 energy, or 270 minerals since you could also call down a Mule for that amount of energy? A player scans to get information, to detect invisible units, or to gain vision to attack. Would you use a scan if you think that you can kill just a single marine which would otherwise be out of vision range? Taking 50 mineral worth from the enemy but at the cost of beeing 270 harvested minerals behind?
Would you scan an enemy base if you don't expect to get information of at least 270 minerals worth? To know if you build the right units has a mineral equivalent since you don't need to build an extra bunch of units to blind-counter to a possible hidden tech switch of the enemy.
A depot built far away costs more than a close depot since the SVC is longer off mining. But a terran wall-in can pay off since you can skip some early Marines to safely get your worker count up.
It gets more complicated with Zerg. If you build a hatch, you need 300 minerals plus 50 minerals for the drone replacement plus the travel time in which the drone is not mining plus a larva. But with the drone morphed to a hatch, you get 1 supply back, which is worth an 1/8 overlord, meaning it saves you 12.5 minerals.
Anyways, to get the real cost, I think a good approach is to think about "what else could I have done with it?" A scan wasted on a random location on the map means to get behind by 270 minerals which you could get if you just call a Mule on a close mineral patch. While the direct cost of the scan is just energy, I think it is very reasonable to convert the energy cost to minerals, since nearly anything can be measured in minerals and this makes comparison much easier.
To forfeit the opportunity to get 270 minerals in addition to your worker harvests means, to get 270 minerals behind compared to optimal play.
edit: In the long term, the Mule is worth even more than 270 minerals. While the Mule just helps you to harvest faster (he does not add minerals to the ressource location) and thus requires you to expand at an earlier time, it is always better to have minerals now compared to have the same amount later. With the 270 minerals per Mule you can get five workers (250 minerals) earlier and enables you to saturate an expo running earlier. Over the time, it adds up. If you use the mule just once, you have more than +270 minerals harvested compared to a player who never calls down a Mule.
edit #2On November 30 2010 21:01 Cel.erity wrote:However, a mule is not as good as 270 minerals. First off, even though it harvests quickly, it's not instantaneous. It's not as if the 270 minerals just appears in your bank account when you spend the energy. This is of course true. If you need to pump 5 marines out of 5 raxes, a Mule will not enable you to do so instantly. While the Mule helps you to get 270 minerals over the worker-only harvesting, you need to think ahead since you get the minerals (9x 30) only over time. A scan however rewards you instantly. That means: Killing 5 enemy marines (250 minerals) with scan vision right now is may be better than getting 270 additional minerals over time.
edit #3: Some users pointed out that a Mule is good early on, but less useful later since you have a good income anyways. This is true. Instead of comparing absolute income, a comparison of percental gain is also useful. If you have 3 blue bases running plus a gold expo, any Mule will get you very few % more income. If you are still building up your first base, a Mule however considerably boosts you overall income. Another way to phrase it: When you already have a high income, the value of 270 extra minerals is small. However a scan gets more useful compared to 270 minerals, because at this time the enemy may be already mustered cloaked units, or has a large force on a cliff you could attack with scan vision.
edit #4On November 30 2010 21:26 QofQfromtehQ wrote: If a Mule is worth 270 Minerals, every Zerg building is worth infinite minerals because instead, the sacrificed drone could have collected minerals all the time. Lot of flaws there, and btw I would LOVE to be able to scan for 270 Minerals anyway. This analogy is wrong because we need to compare with optimal play. The drone which is consumed by the zerg structure can and should be rebuild for 50 minerals and a larva. If you not rebuild the drone, then you will really be punished in the game as it develops.
edit #5: Another argument against "A Mule costs 270 minerals" is that you don't lose those minerals on a scan, you just get them later. This is of course true, but in a standard game, there is always an expansion you could secure. (Unless the enemy has very good map control.) If we simplify it, the total count of mineral patches to harvest is not a limiting factor.
edit #6 (Link to full posting http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=173018¤tpage=4#74)
On November 30 2010 23:12 thenexusp wrote: There's an idea from economics that says that money now is worth more than money later.
[...]
People who argue that the MULE is just a loan don't know what they're talking about. It's an interest-free loan that you don't have to pay back for a very, very long time (as long as you keep taking expansions anyway...) which is almost as good as the money straight up. Thank you for the short, yet complete analyzis.
|
Cost is energy, so you aren't losing actual minerals, but the opportunity cost of the MULE.
|
I think it just gives you the 270 minerals quicker, it doesn't cost you anything but if you have a tight build order that requires them and you scan, you are missing out. TvT mules and scan balance is very important. Lategame I really prefer scans unless a gold expo.
|
This is something people have been talking about since the first week of beta. Terrans are obviously careful about when they use scans.
|
It only costs 50 energy. You have to decide if you want to transform the 50 energy into some 270 minerals or into information. depending on the situation and personal choice, either can be valid. also, if you MULE, you do NOT get behind in minerals, but rather AHEAD, provided that you have a roughly equal worker count as your opponent.
maybe T players rely on the mule too much as an income source and therefore get less workers then the other races and need the mule to stay even and that is where the 'cost' mentality stems from.
|
I think the later into a game you get the less you lose from using scan over mule. In the first 5-10 minutes of the game, i rarely scan due to needing resources but once I get 2 fully saturated bases then i feel like i gain more than i lose by using Scan.
once you are on 3 bases, you can basically choose which you want to use. Do i need to rebuild my army fast? Mules. So i need vision for an attack? Scan.
|
On November 30 2010 20:53 emythrel wrote: I think the later into a game you get the less you lose from using scan over mule. That is correct, I added a long-term examination to the OP.
On November 30 2010 20:53 Nycaloth wrote: It only costs 50 energy. You have to decide if you want to transform the 50 energy into some 270 minerals or into information. depending on the situation What is a good way to decide? I think a very reasonable way is that if you expect to get an advantage somehow worth 270+ minerals, you will scan. If you only expect a very small advantage, you would prefer the 270 minerals because you compare the expected scan information / vision with 270 minerals.
|
In early game I don't use ANY scans to scout if possible at all and 1 max. Mid-late when you have 2+ orbitals with energy building up while you macro and control your army I use scans all the time just to be safe.
|
If you choose X over Y, your choice in effect costs you Y. It's semantics, but that's the game theory geek way of thinking about things. So yes, every scan costs you a mule.
However, a mule is not as good as 270 minerals. First off, even though it harvests quickly, it's not instantaneous. It's not as if the 270 minerals just appears in your bank account when you spend the energy. Secondly, it's only a loan. In some cases like when you're taking your 3rd, odds are you will never mine out quick enough for that to matter, but early game you're basically just borrowing minerals with the mule.
So yeah, if mules were cooldown-only, and scans just cost straight up 270 minerals, you would see fewer scans. As it is, it's merely a tactical decision between taking a huge economy boost or getting valuable scouting intel.
|
On November 30 2010 21:01 Cel.erity wrote: If you choose X over Y, your choice in effect costs you Y. It's semantics, but that's the game theory geek way of thinking about things. So yes, every scan costs you a mule.
However, a mule is not as good as 270 minerals. First off, even though it harvests quickly, it's not instantaneous. It's not as if the 270 minerals just appears in your bank account when you spend the energy. This is a good point, I will include it in the OP.
|
Hmm, while in the early game its completely resonable to say that scans have a "cost" of 270 minerals, in the late game when you have a decent about of scvs its completly sound to have a fair share sum of energy to scan to gain advantage of sight or scouting
Whether you're scanning to get vision for Siege tanks, to see a high-ground to nuke with a ghost, or scout places that you would never of been able to of gotten a unit in.
While having your first depo close to your mineral line its not as important after that, since macro kicks in, and unless you intend on having all of you sim city compact, (seeing 12 depos all clustered together with food drops on them or not is a sight i love to see when i go nuke ghosts) I enjoy the fact that even though we lose mining time, we have the option to continue mining after making structures, where zerg doesn't, though I envy toss being able to just drop buildings lol
In the end It really comes down to play style and reacting to opponents build orders, (for example having a scan ready just in case of dts engaging away from any turrets, and many people go with out ravens its seems, so i'd say in case of cloaked/burrowed units i'd rather have some scans saved, then losing half my army to something I could of scanned.) or over-reacting to the fear of cloaked units, and losing out on several mules. :-/
|
On November 30 2010 20:53 Nycaloth wrote: maybe T players rely on the mule too much as an income source and therefore get less workers then the other races and need the mule to stay even and that is where the 'cost' mentality stems from. I think the opposite is actually true. Some terrans rely too much on scans as an information source. If you can get the same information with a 50 mineral unit like an SCV or marine (like checking an expansion for example) and some forethought, it's much better to use a mule instead.
A mule doesn't give you free minerals, but it does give you more income. The downside is draining your mineral fields quicker, but you can partially help that by calling them down in newer expansions. No matter how you think of scans, if you scan 10 times you are going to have 2700 minerals worth less stuff than if you used 10 mules instead. The downside is having less information of course. There is of course a potential to lose a mule to an attack, and you do need an expansion with plenty of minerals to make use of that income.
The races are always balanced as a package. You can't just say that mules are extra income, because they are part of the terran package, as is the ability to sacrifice that income for more information/detection. It is possible for a race to be overpowered of course, but that's a completely different thing.
|
it doesnt cost gold immediately, but it costs gold in the long run. if u call down a mule instead of scanning, u will have 270 more minerals some minutes later. so it is a hit to ur eco if u scan.
|
On November 30 2010 21:07 CompanionQue wrote: Hmm, while in the early game its completely resonable to say that scans have a "cost" of 270 minerals, in the late game when you have a decent about of scvs its completly sound to have a fair share sum of energy to scan to gain advantage of sight or scouting I will add a similar idea in the OP, and use relative income as second option to compare.
|
Yeah, but you are lying. A scan does not cost minerals. OC energy is not limited. I'm just gonna give up now.. I agree with everything you said but please word your stuff so that you are not straight up lying to people's faces, it destroys your credability.
|
Starcraft is a time based strategy game.
It costs 270 minerals you could have had sooner, but it doesn't take away minerals that you can get later.
|
i think that the 150 first energy is critical for mules, it is so easy to scout with scvs or troops in that time, and you really do need the extra minerals. after that its all about if you think you need it or not, maybe if he has low army count so you need 2 scout in order 2 find out what he does.
|
On November 30 2010 20:53 Nycaloth wrote: maybe T players rely on the mule too much as an income source and therefore get less workers then the other races and need the mule to stay even and that is where the 'cost' mentality stems from.
It's not really a choice - Terrans can't actually produce workers as fast as either of the other races on equal bases.
|
It gets more complicated with Zerg. If you build a hatch, you need 300 minerals plus 50 minerals for the drone replacement plus the travel time in which the drone is not mining plus a larva. But with the drone morphed to a hatch, you get 1 supply back, which is worth an 1/8 overlord, meaning it saves you 12.5 minerals.
Using your logic this should say "plus the time in which the drone is not mining", which is the rest of the game duration. That's 40 minerals a minute in a base that isn't fully saturated, which would result in all the zerg buildings "costing" a lot more. Buff zerg?
Scan costs 50 energy, nothing more.
|
If a DT kills 300 minerals worth of your units because you didn't save scans then you'd regret it. Sometimes that extra knowledge gained is worth more than 270 minerals.
|
On November 30 2010 21:17 osten wrote: Yeah, but you are lying. A scan does not cost minerals. OC energy is not limited. I'm just gonna give up now.. I agree with everything you said but please word your stuff so that you are not straight up lying to people's faces, it destroys your credability. I am not lying. If you fly with Phoenixes to a terran base and you excpect that you can lift and shoot one worker unit before the enemy reacts, do you kill an SCV or a Mule ? To replace an SVC costs 50 minerals plus the time to rebuild in which the replacement SCV is not yet mining. A mule could be on its last way or it could just have started it work. We consider its worth 270 / 2 = 135 minerals, and that is why it is best to lift and kill the Mule instead of an SVC. While the SVC costs minerals and the Mule just energy, the worth of the SVC and the Mule can both be converted to minerals.
|
A Scan could have been used to get 270 Minerals but it doesn't cost 270 minerals, it just removes the 270 minerals from your possible short-term income.
BUT: Two cloaked Banshees killing 10 of your workers is 500 minerals lost and a very reduced income, which could be prevented by a scan.
It's as simple as that.
|
If a Mule is worth 270 Minerals, every Zerg building is worth infinite minerals because instead, the sacrificed drone could have collected minerals all the time. Lot of flaws there, and btw I would LOVE to be able to scan for 270 Minerals anyway.
|
Why is your post so long? I didn't read any of it because the answer is obvious.
The scan costs you 240-270 minerals (depending on which patch you put it on) until you mine out the base. Then it is free.
By that same token, every MULE costs you information, and is never refunded.
I ask again though, why is your post so long?
|
On November 30 2010 21:21 TrueIsAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +It gets more complicated with Zerg. If you build a hatch, you need 300 minerals plus 50 minerals for the drone replacement plus the travel time in which the drone is not mining plus a larva. But with the drone morphed to a hatch, you get 1 supply back, which is worth an 1/8 overlord, meaning it saves you 12.5 minerals. Using your logic this should say "plus the time in which the drone is not mining", which is the rest of the game duration. That's 40 minerals a minute in a base that isn't fully saturated, which would result in all the zerg buildings "costing" a lot more. Buff zerg? Scan costs 50 energy, nothing more. A drone can (and should) be replaced. Taking drones from a base which is not over-saturated to morph a structure and not replacing them is one of the greatest issue any zerg beginner faces. If you not rebuild that drone for the expo hatch, you indeed forfeit an awful lot of minerals. The 50 energy for the terran scan or mule roughly worth 270 minerals. You would not spend the energy on scan if you don't expect to get an advantage worth at least 270 minerals. You forfeit the Mule to get the scan. Therefore the scan costs a Mule (and vice versa, a Mule costs a scan. This punishes a too greedy terran which is not saving energy to scan a DT.)
|
A scan does not cost a mule.
Take this example. I have two cookies. You can have one. By your logic, choosing either cookie will cost you the other cookie. Since you are gaining 1 cookie and losing 1 cookie your net gain is 0 cookies. Does that make sense to you?
A scan merely costs 50 energy. You do not need to have 270 minerals to use a scan.
If you are evaluating the option of going for a scan and going for a MULE, then a MULE will GIVE you 270 minerals more.
|
On November 30 2010 21:26 QofQfromtehQ wrote: If a Mule is worth 270 Minerals, every Zerg building is worth infinite minerals because instead, the sacrificed drone could have collected minerals all the time. Lot of flaws there, and btw I would LOVE to be able to scan for 270 Minerals anyway. I will include this in the OP and explain why this analogy is wrong.
|
On November 30 2010 20:59 [F_]aths wrote: It only costs 50 energy. You have to decide if you want to transform the 50 energy into some 270 minerals or into information. depending on the situation What is a good way to decide? I think a very reasonable way is that if you expect to get an advantage somehow worth 270+ minerals, you will scan. If you only expect a very small advantage, you would prefer the 270 minerals because you compare the expected scan information / vision with 270 minerals. [/QUOTE]
this is a very hard one, i cant think of any way to transform scouting information into a mineral value. i think we can all agree that scouting is important, but what are the answers to the questions "am i getting 4gated?", "is he droning?", "whats his tech path?", "where is the army and what is it made of?" and "Is there an expansion yet" worth in minerals?
MULEs get you extra income, scans help to decide what that money should be spent on.
whenever i play T (doesnt happen very often to be fair) and i get uncomfortable, i like to scan my opponents to find out what they are up to. even if it just confirms my suspicions, it still buys me peace of mind...
|
On November 30 2010 21:23 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:17 osten wrote: Yeah, but you are lying. A scan does not cost minerals. OC energy is not limited. I'm just gonna give up now.. I agree with everything you said but please word your stuff so that you are not straight up lying to people's faces, it destroys your credability. I am not lying. If you fly with Phoenixes to a terran base and you excpect that you can lift and shoot one worker unit before the enemy reacts, do you kill an SCV or a Mule ? To replace an SVC costs 50 minerals plus the time to rebuild in which the replacement SCV is not yet mining. A mule could be on its last way or it could just have started it work. We consider its worth 270 / 2 = 135 minerals, and that is why it is best to lift and kill the Mule instead of an SVC. While the SVC costs minerals and the Mule just energy, the worth of the SVC and the Mule can both be converted to minerals.
Another thing to take in consideration there is the lifespan of the unit, and possible the fact that mules cannot be used to build structures. Possible forcing a svc to be pulled off of the line to build, that would of otherwise been dedicated to mining. Though, I don't feel like going through the math of it all, so its a moot point to even bring up I guess.
|
On November 30 2010 21:26 QofQfromtehQ wrote: If a Mule is worth 270 Minerals, every Zerg building is worth infinite minerals because instead, the sacrificed drone could have collected minerals all the time. Lot of flaws there, and btw I would LOVE to be able to scan for 270 Minerals anyway. That only applies if building a building makes you not have full saturation on your mineral fields. Suppose you have 2 bases with just the right amount of drones to have full mineral income from those bases. The "extra cost" of the building is the amount of minerals it costs to replace the drone in the mineral line (50) and the income that drone would have mined in the time it takes to replace that one drone to again achieve full mineral saturation (probably about 20 seconds assuming you had the exact amount of drones the mineral lines can support)
Mules do not obey the rules of worker saturation, as they collect minerals whether or not there are already workers on that mineral patch. Workers of all races are limited by the maximum amount of workers one mineral patch can support and the maximum cap of minerals the field can be mined. Mules are only limited by the amount of minerals the field holds.
To put it shortly: Mules are always extra income as long as there are existing safe mineral fields with enough minerals left. Workers are only extra income if there are unsaturated safe mineral fields to be worked.
|
On November 30 2010 21:27 mlbrandow wrote: Why is your post so long? I didn't read any of it because the answer is obvious. Thank you, but some still argue that a Scan cost is best given in energy instead of 270 minerals.
On November 30 2010 21:27 mlbrandow wrote:By that same token, every MULE costs you information, and is never refunded. Yes, a scan costs a Mule and a Mule costs a scan. Using all energy for Mules and getting owned by a DT proves the worth of a scan
|
On November 30 2010 21:30 Roban wrote: A scan does not cost a mule.
Take this example. I have two cookies. You can have one. By your logic, choosing either cookie will cost you the other cookie. Since you are gaining 1 cookie and losing 1 cookie your net gain is 0 cookies. Does that make sense to you?
A scan merely costs 50 energy. You do not need to have 270 minerals to use a scan.
If you are evaluating the option of going for a scan and going for a MULE, then a MULE will GIVE you 270 minerals more.
Include this too in you OP please, because it ones again shows that your arguments are full of flaws.
|
It doesn't cost 270 minerals. It's not like if you USE the scan, the minerals in your mineral line disappear.
|
On November 30 2010 21:27 mlbrandow wrote: Why is your post so long? I didn't read any of it because the answer is obvious.
The scan costs you 240-270 minerals (depending on which patch you put it on) until you mine out the base. Then it is free.
By that same token, every MULE costs you information, and is never refunded.
I ask again though, why is your post so long?
When you guys stop arguing and read this post, you'll stop arguing. (Circular Logic for your circular bickering).
This has a very clear answer.
Also, while that analogy you aforementioned about Zerg buildings costing more than they do, he's right in that respect. They cost extra minerals due to the fact that you lose a drone and it costs you minerals equal to the time to mining time lost to saturation. This cost is essentially subtracted from the cost of the buildings, which are discounted to counter-balance the loss of a worker.
|
I'd kind of like to see people scouting with mules. It costs the same thing as a scan but it can move around and cover more area. The only problem is that you need vision of somewhere to mule. But if you can get halfway up a ramp, you could mule inside and scout a whole base.
|
if a scan costs 270minerals, any building that a zerg make costs INFINITE minerals.
whats the point of saying a spell costs any amout of minerals at all?
|
On November 30 2010 21:33 Nycaloth wrote: this is a very hard one, i cant think of any way to transform scouting information into a mineral value. i think we can all agree that scouting is important, but what are the answers to the questions "am i getting 4gated?", "is he droning?", "whats his tech path?", "where is the army and what is it made of?" and "Is there an expansion yet" worth in minerals? If you know that upon the cliff you would see 1 marine with a scan (since you had vision a short time ago) and the single enemy marine would be owned by your sieged tanks below the cliff, you could spend the scan to take away 50 minerals from the enemy. On the same time, you are getting behind by 270 minerals. I don't think that it would be wise to scan in this situation.
You normally want to know the enemy army composition before he moves out, that is why you scan the base. If you have the correct counter in time, you will lose less units (and thus, less mineral worth) in the upcoming fight.
|
So basically, the whole world is wrong when it says the scan costs 270 minerals. You also forget the time interest rate.
IMPORTANT FACT: Essentially, people over-exaggerate to say that a scan costs 270 minerals. Usually when people say a marine cost 50 minerals (in actuality 50 minerals, 1 supply, and time from barrack), the scan notation of saying cost minerals is actually incorrect.
Instead of always trying to concentrate on spamming MULEs, view it as this. If you need some extra minerals for a short period of time, get a MULE. Want a scan? Scan. Want supply? Throw down a supply! So instead of people sounding like they actually know what they're talking about (those who keep pointing out that scans actually *cost* minerals), all of these are equivalent to 50 energy on a orbital command, aka, *cost* 50 energy. No, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to note a scan does not COST 270 minerals.
The better way is, go define your own utility function. The opportunity cost of scanning is the utility gained from getting a MULE (which is 270 minerals, if you want your utility function to be all jsut about minerals =.=, but that's probably not it).
TL;DR: To everyone who tries to abuse economics without actually knowing, please stop saying a scan costs 270 minerals. It's throwing people off from understanding what the mechanic really is.
|
On November 30 2010 21:51 ScythedBlade wrote: So basically, the whole world is wrong when it says the scan costs 270 minerals. You also forget the time interest rate.
IMPORTANT FACT: Essentially, people over-exaggerate to say that a scan costs 270 minerals. Usually when people say a marine cost 50 minerals (in actuality 50 minerals, 1 supply, and time from barrack), the scan notation of saying cost minerals is actually incorrect.
Instead of always trying to concentrate on spamming MULEs, view it as this. If you need some extra minerals for a short period of time, get a MULE. Want a scan? Scan. Want supply? Throw down a supply! So instead of people sounding like they actually know what they're talking about (those who keep pointing out that scans actually *cost* minerals), all of these are equivalent to 50 energy on a orbital command, aka, *cost* 50 energy. No, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to note a scan does not COST 270 minerals.
The better way is, go define your own utility function. The opportunity cost of scanning is the utility gained from getting a MULE (which is 270 minerals, if you want your utility function to be all jsut about minerals =.=, but that's probably not it).
TL;DR: To everyone who tries to abuse economics without actually knowing, please stop saying a scan costs 270 minerals. It's throwing people off from understanding what the mechanic really is.
Respectfully, maybe you should return to economics class .
The scan very clearly costs you 240-270 minerals over 90 seconds until your base is mined out. It's not some horrible logic. This answer is very clear and simple. You don't need utility functions or harmonic mean algorithms or any voodoo shanti shanti.
It gets you minerals more quickly from the wealth of minerals at a base location. But the only time you break even is when you mine out the base. At that time, the scan from 5-10 minutes ago would be considered free, because you'd have earned that income with normal worker production.
Potentially if you maynard well, you may not "refund" those minerals until the 20-25 minute mark of a game.
A scan isn't free, it costs you 240-270 minerals (until you mine out that location). In any situation where a base isn't completely mined out before the end of the game, you never recoup that cost. And it is a COST, because after 90 seconds you would have had that extra 240-270, and because you scanned, you DON'T have that. The potential income after 90 seconds because lost income once that time has passed.
|
On November 30 2010 21:50 TedJustice wrote: I'd kind of like to see people scouting with mules. It costs the same thing as a scan but it can move around and cover more area. The only problem is that you need vision of somewhere to mule. But if you can get halfway up a ramp, you could mule inside and scout a whole base.
While laddering I've actually had a fair slip of macro and accidently stockpiled 400 plus OC energy, so I scanned there main, and dropped a bunch of mules into there base one after the other, luckily he didn't notice them XD
dropping mules in front of banelings is something i've messed around with as well, in addition to dropping them on tank lines causing friendly fire lol (think i've seen qxc as well as tlo when he mained terran do this as well)
|
God. Saying a scan costs minerals is arguing with the mind of an elementary school child. Just stop it.
|
On November 30 2010 21:29 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:21 TrueIsAwesome wrote:It gets more complicated with Zerg. If you build a hatch, you need 300 minerals plus 50 minerals for the drone replacement plus the travel time in which the drone is not mining plus a larva. But with the drone morphed to a hatch, you get 1 supply back, which is worth an 1/8 overlord, meaning it saves you 12.5 minerals. Using your logic this should say "plus the time in which the drone is not mining", which is the rest of the game duration. That's 40 minerals a minute in a base that isn't fully saturated, which would result in all the zerg buildings "costing" a lot more. Buff zerg? Scan costs 50 energy, nothing more. A drone can (and should) be replaced. Taking drones from a base which is not over-saturated to morph a structure and not replacing them is one of the greatest issue any zerg beginner faces. If you not rebuild that drone for the expo hatch, you indeed forfeit an awful lot of minerals. The 50 energy for the terran scan or mule roughly worth 270 minerals. You would not spend the energy on scan if you don't expect to get an advantage worth at least 270 minerals. You forfeit the Mule to get the scan. Therefore the scan costs a Mule (and vice versa, a Mule costs a scan. This punishes a too greedy terran which is not saving energy to scan a DT.)
See below for replacing a lost worker, it's a bit different with zerg mechanics, but the concept is the same. I believe the bolded part is the crux of this discussion. A Mule is not worth 270 minerals, since the minerals you get from using the mule will result in you mining out the base faster. You gain income now, but lose some later when you mine out faster. The sum is zero. If mineral patches had infinite amount of mineral in them, you would be correct in saying that a scan costs 270 minerals.
I haven't slept in a while... maybe i'm talking gibberish.
On November 30 2010 21:23 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:17 osten wrote: Yeah, but you are lying. A scan does not cost minerals. OC energy is not limited. I'm just gonna give up now.. I agree with everything you said but please word your stuff so that you are not straight up lying to people's faces, it destroys your credability. I am not lying. If you fly with Phoenixes to a terran base and you excpect that you can lift and shoot one worker unit before the enemy reacts, do you kill an SCV or a Mule ? To replace an SVC costs 50 minerals plus the time to rebuild in which the replacement SCV is not yet mining. A mule could be on its last way or it could just have started it work. We consider its worth 270 / 2 = 135 minerals, and that is why it is best to lift and kill the Mule instead of an SVC. While the SVC costs minerals and the Mule just energy, the worth of the SVC and the Mule can both be converted to minerals.
The SCV vs Mule is a bit situational, but if your opponent is not fully saturated, killing the SCV is better. He will lose income from that single SCV until he reaches full saturation, not just the income until his next SCV built. He cannot replace that missing SCV (until saturation) if we assume constant worker production.
|
I think the safest way to confront the situation is the following:
A scan costs a MULE.
A MULE costs a scan.
Each one costs the other. Since a MULE mines minerals, scanning would therefore drop your income. Saying a scan costs minerals is a little bit wrong, I'd say. But it does cost income which is actually (imo) even more important than straight minerals anyway.
|
On November 30 2010 22:00 TrueIsAwesome wrote: I believe the bolded part is the crux of this discussion. A Mule is not worth 270 minerals, since the minerals you get from using the mule will result in you mining out the base faster. You gain income now, but lose some later when you mine out faster. The sum is zero. If mineral patches had infinite amount of mineral in them, you would be correct in saying that a scan costs 270 minerals.
Except minerals now are worth more to the player than minerals later. Reason being? The game may not last to later.
I value potential future minerals as far less than minerals ready to spend. And I'm not alone or you wouldn't see so many players saturating their bases.
|
This bullshit that people sig about zerg buildings costing infinite minerals is pissing me off. First off there is a finite number of minerals on the map. Second, you don't have access to every expansion. Third, game time is limited. And most importantly, some buildings are required to let you expand, live, or power more drones.
A scan on a cloaked banshee technically reduces your eco by 270 but has "infinite" potential if it saves even 1 scv by that logic.
To the actual topic: The 270 less minerals doesn't come into play until about 5 minutes later, at which point the benefit of having an extra OC for 2 mules will far, outweigh that, so in the early game the 270 minerals you won't mine later can be ignored. It should really be treated as 270 mineral cost in the early game. If your build only needs to adapt to cloaked banshee in tvt, its probably better to make an engineering bay and 2 turrets for 325 a little bit later than to scan for 270 and possibly learn nothing, and having to spent the money anyway if he's going banshee, but if there are several allins you are looking for its worth the scan if its the difference between a win and a loss. So its not as simple as "Scan to see if he's going cloak or not to save money on engin bay", you want turrets and engin bay for upgrades, turrets can kill vikings and medivacs, so you gain minerals in the long run in all cases.
|
Early game - NO. Mid game - depends on situation (but mule is preferable). Late game - Hell, yes. I even dare to think its a cheat (but again, terrans are bad in late game).
the answer is pretty obvious, you don't need a thread for it.
|
A solid argument proving what terrans are generally well aware of. People complain about mules being overpowered, when actually they are the weakest of the three macro mechanics under most circumstances. A scan is indeed worth 1 mule, which is 270 minerals, and also means you didnt take advantage of the terran macro mechanic, whereas the protoss and zerg's macro mechanics are in force at all times.
An orbital command can maintain a single mule constantly- it saves exactly enough energy for the next in the time it takes the last one to expire. A mule harvests about 270 minerals over a 90 second period, or about 3 minerals per second, equivalent to 3 scv's. Therefore each orbital command is, assuming you never scan, worth about 3 scv's permanently in exchange for a 150 mineral investment. Completely worth doing, obviously. However that is a flat +3 workers whereas chronoboost is a +50% worker production. For low econ games the mule shines since it is a flat bonus to your worker count, take a look at GSL 3 games using marine+scv rushes to keep both players on low economy, and counting on the mule to give the terran an advantage. The other two races have exponentially scaling macro mechanics. Especially zerg.
Even without queens, zerg spawns larvae once every 13 seconds, and the build time on an scv is 17 seconds. Constant drone production out of a single hatchery, no macro mechanic required, results in 1.3 times more workers than the terran. With larvae injections adding 4 larvae every 40 seconds, the resultant value is about 7 larvae every 40 seconds. In that time a terran can make 2.35 workers, and the zerg can have 7. Naturally the zerg also needs these larvae to make military units, but you can't say that the terran economy is excessively powerful when compared with either of the other two sides.
|
On November 30 2010 21:50 BurningSera wrote: if a scan costs 270minerals, any building that a zerg make costs INFINITE minerals. This is not true, see edit #4 in OP.
On November 30 2010 21:50 BurningSera wrote:whats the point of saying a spell costs any amout of minerals at all? This is much more complex. I really want to focus on scan vs. Mule in this thread.
|
Definition of COST 1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : price b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object 2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something 3 plural : expenses incurred in litigation; especially : those given by the law or the court to the prevailing party against the losing party Dictionary
I want to ask the OP to rephrase his statements. What you are doing, as I see it, is comparing a scan to a MULE and determine how many minerals a MULE is worth. If that is true, please write that instead of saying a scan costs a mule
By the definition above you can see that cost is something you PAY. You do not PAY a MULE to get a scan. If a scan costs a MULE then you would first need to have a MULE to pay for the scan.
I think it would help this thread if you made it clear that you are simply trying to determine the expected economic advantage of a MULE.
Let's not argue about semantics any more okay?
|
"2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something"
With optimal play (saving no energy or just 50 for an emergency scan) you pass on a mule every time you scan.
|
On November 30 2010 22:13 Roban wrote: I want to ask the OP to rephrase his statements. What you are doing, as I see it, is comparing a scan to a MULE and determine how many minerals a MULE is worth. If that is true, please write that instead of saying a scan costs a mule
Don't be pedantic. Just pretend the OP had "opportunity cost" everywhere it says "cost". Most of the time the opportunity cost is more relevant to a decision than any "real" cost.
|
On November 30 2010 22:13 Roban wrote: By the definition above you can see that cost is something you PAY. You do not PAY a MULE to get a scan. If a scan costs a MULE then you would first need to have a MULE to pay for the scan.
I think it would help this thread if you made it clear that you are simply trying to determine the expected economic advantage of a MULE.
Let's not argue about semantics any more okay?
I don't understand. Are you trolling?
A scan definitely costs a MULE. You cannot spend 50 energy on an orbital for both a MULE and a scan. You have to pick one or the other. Therefore, they cost eachother. If you want to argue that it costs "energy" not "a MULE" that's just silly, since the energy is realistically just used for MULE's and scans.
To make an analogy: If you have one queen per hatchery and you choose to make a creep tumor and you never previously missed an inject, the creep tumor COSTS YOU LARVAE. It certainly does. I would never try to argue that the tumor only "costs you energy" and therefore has "no larvae cost."
|
On November 30 2010 22:15 [F_]aths wrote: "2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something"
With optimal play (saving no energy or just 50 for an emergency scan) you pass on a mule every time you scan.
Alright, fine, we'll argue some more about semantics.
you say you pass on a mule every time you scan.
So what did you lose? what penalty did you incur?
Here's a practical example. I have an Orbital Command. It has 50 energy. I scan. Now I still have an Orbital Command. Now It has 0 energy. Did I just lose a MULE? No, I didn't even have any in the first place. Did I receive a penalty in any way? No, my Orbital Command still functions the same way. The only thing I PAID to scan was 50 energy on my Orbital Command.
EDIT: No, ltortoise, I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to help the OP keep this thread on track, because a lot of posts here are only saying that a scan doesn't cost a mule. I'm trying to explain things as best I can so I'm sorry if you don't understand.
|
in economic terms its economic cost is a mule. it accounting terms its cost is nothing. when deciding whether or not to use a scan, one must weigh the renunciation value of using the mule (270) and decide whether or not the information you gain from a scan is worth +/- than the mule.
|
On November 30 2010 21:10 Black Gun wrote: it doesnt cost gold immediately, but it costs gold in the long run. if u call down a mule instead of scanning, u will have 270 more minerals some minutes later. so it is a hit to ur eco if u scan. it doesnt cost anything at all(except energy), its not like using the scan makes the minerals you mine disappear(which alot of people seem to think) but that you get them later
it doesnt cost anything but energy
|
Opportunity cost of a scan is a MULE, a mule can mine 270 minerals which carries different opportunistic value at different times in a game.
|
A mule harvest as fast as 4.5 SCVs on an unsaturated base, so i think the best way to imagine the situation is like this: when you create an orbital command you actually create 4.5 SCVs and 2.25 mineral patches for them. now when you use an OC ability what really happens is that you transform those SCVs into a giant megatron that flies to space for 90 seconds. this megatron can either look somewhere on the map (scan) or crap some supply. after the 90 seconds the megatron disassembles back into the 4.5 SCVs and continue mining. i dont know why blizzard didnt do it this way and decided to complicate things with mules and all this weird stuff
|
On November 30 2010 22:09 Almania wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 22:00 TrueIsAwesome wrote: I believe the bolded part is the crux of this discussion. A Mule is not worth 270 minerals, since the minerals you get from using the mule will result in you mining out the base faster. You gain income now, but lose some later when you mine out faster. The sum is zero. If mineral patches had infinite amount of mineral in them, you would be correct in saying that a scan costs 270 minerals. Except minerals now are worth more to the player than minerals later. Reason being? The game may not last to later. I value potential future minerals as far less than minerals ready to spend. And I'm not alone or you wouldn't see so many players saturating their bases.
That's a good point.
On November 30 2010 22:24 machination wrote: Opportunity cost of a scan is a MULE, a mule can mine 270 minerals which carries different opportunistic value at different times in a game.
This seems like the best way to put it.
|
On November 30 2010 22:09 Slayer91 wrote: This bullshit that people sig about zerg buildings costing infinite minerals is pissing me off. First off there is a finite number of minerals on the map. Second, you don't have access to every expansion. Third, game time is limited. And most importantly, some buildings are required to let you expand, live, or power more drones.
A scan on a cloaked banshee technically reduces your eco by 270 but has "infinite" potential if it saves even 1 scv by that logic.
To the actual topic: The 270 less minerals doesn't come into play until about 5 minutes later, at which point the benefit of having an extra OC for 2 mules will far, outweigh that, so in the early game the 270 minerals you won't mine later can be ignored. It should really be treated as 270 mineral cost in the early game. If your build only needs to adapt to cloaked banshee in tvt, its probably better to make an engineering bay and 2 turrets for 325 a little bit later than to scan for 270 and possibly learn nothing, and having to spent the money anyway if he's going banshee, but if there are several allins you are looking for its worth the scan if its the difference between a win and a loss. So its not as simple as "Scan to see if he's going cloak or not to save money on engin bay", you want turrets and engin bay for upgrades, turrets can kill vikings and medivacs, so you gain minerals in the long run in all cases.
go main zerg for 2 weeks and come back to read your comment. i guarantee you will be annoyed by the OP more than the 'zerg building costs infinite mineral'.
btw, lets say mule can cost ~270minerals, how many trips of harvesting will make you back 270minerals? mule/scan is a no brainer benefit terran in every possible way, there is no trade off or penalty at all for mule/scan.
|
On November 30 2010 22:13 Roban wrote:Show nested quote +Definition of COST 1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : price b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object 2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something 3 plural : expenses incurred in litigation; especially : those given by the law or the court to the prevailing party against the losing party DictionaryI want to ask the OP to rephrase his statements. What you are doing, as I see it, is comparing a scan to a MULE and determine how many minerals a MULE is worth. If that is true, please write that instead of saying a scan costs a mule By the definition above you can see that cost is something you PAY. You do not PAY a MULE to get a scan. If a scan costs a MULE then you would first need to have a MULE to pay for the scan. I think it would help this thread if you made it clear that you are simply trying to determine the expected economic advantage of a MULE. Let's not argue about semantics any more okay?
If you take your point of reference from 90 seconds later instead of the time when you scan or call down the mule, then yes, the COST is 240-270 minerals.
I wish someone had read any of my 3 posts in this thread definitively answering this question.
I'll post it one final time for kicks:
A scan costs you 240-270 minerals until such time as you mine out the base. Then, it is considered to have been free. If the base is not mined out, you never recoup those minerals, and therefore you lost them, a cost.
|
On November 30 2010 22:30 TrueIsAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 22:24 machination wrote: Opportunity cost of a scan is a MULE, a mule can mine 270 minerals which carries different opportunistic value at different times in a game. This seems like the best way to put it.
Yeah, hopefully more people will learn to not read too much into stuff like this and spend more time actually playing the game.
|
its easier to say a scan costs 1 MULE
|
On November 30 2010 22:38 mlbrandow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 22:13 Roban wrote:Definition of COST 1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : price b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object 2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something 3 plural : expenses incurred in litigation; especially : those given by the law or the court to the prevailing party against the losing party DictionaryI want to ask the OP to rephrase his statements. What you are doing, as I see it, is comparing a scan to a MULE and determine how many minerals a MULE is worth. If that is true, please write that instead of saying a scan costs a mule By the definition above you can see that cost is something you PAY. You do not PAY a MULE to get a scan. If a scan costs a MULE then you would first need to have a MULE to pay for the scan. I think it would help this thread if you made it clear that you are simply trying to determine the expected economic advantage of a MULE. Let's not argue about semantics any more okay? If you take your point of reference from 90 seconds later instead of the time when you scan or call down the mule, then yes, the COST is 240-270 minerals. I wish someone had read any of my 3 posts in this thread definitively answering this question. I'll post it one final time for kicks: A scan costs you 240-270 minerals until such time as you mine out the base. Then, it is considered to have been free. If the base is not mined out, you never recoup those minerals, and therefore you lost them, a cost. You arent losing the minerals, they are still there.
Jesus this is a pointless argument
|
On November 30 2010 22:37 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 22:09 Slayer91 wrote: This bullshit that people sig about zerg buildings costing infinite minerals is pissing me off. First off there is a finite number of minerals on the map. Second, you don't have access to every expansion. Third, game time is limited. And most importantly, some buildings are required to let you expand, live, or power more drones.
A scan on a cloaked banshee technically reduces your eco by 270 but has "infinite" potential if it saves even 1 scv by that logic.
To the actual topic: The 270 less minerals doesn't come into play until about 5 minutes later, at which point the benefit of having an extra OC for 2 mules will far, outweigh that, so in the early game the 270 minerals you won't mine later can be ignored. It should really be treated as 270 mineral cost in the early game. If your build only needs to adapt to cloaked banshee in tvt, its probably better to make an engineering bay and 2 turrets for 325 a little bit later than to scan for 270 and possibly learn nothing, and having to spent the money anyway if he's going banshee, but if there are several allins you are looking for its worth the scan if its the difference between a win and a loss. So its not as simple as "Scan to see if he's going cloak or not to save money on engin bay", you want turrets and engin bay for upgrades, turrets can kill vikings and medivacs, so you gain minerals in the long run in all cases. go main zerg for 2 weeks and come back to read your comment. i guarantee you will be annoyed by the OP more than the 'zerg building costs infinite mineral'. btw, lets say mule can cost ~270minerals, how many trips of harvesting will make you back 270minerals? mule/scan is a no brainer benefit terran in every possible way, there is no trade off or penalty at all for mule/scan.
I do main zerg. I just used a t perspective because zerg isn't relevant to the discussion. Your post seems to be a poorly hidden complaint and terran imba or something along the lines. The cost of an orbital command is 150 minerals. Assuming you never scan, and you expand a lot, the mule mines as much as 3 scvs, constantly, throughout the game until you start to oversaturated patches past 2 per mineral. This means that you're paying 150 minerals for 3 scvs, and you can sacrifice the 3 scvs temporarily to scan. The advantages on oversaturated patches is a plus, and it amounts to bigger numbers of scvs, however, if I were terran, I'd trade my mules for inject larva ANY DAY. You get free larva/creep/heal from a queen, for energy, and it costs nothing. OMGWTFIMBA? Mules are probably the weakest overall macro mechanic, (good for low base counts though, badfor a "macro game" with lots of expoing) but terran's a good race so its OK.
|
On November 30 2010 22:38 mlbrandow wrote: A scan costs you 240-270 minerals until such time as you mine out the base. Then, it is considered to have been free. If the base is not mined out, you never recoup those minerals, and therefore you lost them, a cost.
I'm sorry but this is false.
Minerals are worth more the earlier in the game it is. I can only use the minerals once I've mined them, they don't do me any good sitting in a patch. The whole goal is to mine as quickly as possible.
I never understood people who act like "oh you don't get more minerals you just get them faster."
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. TO GET THEM FASTER.
You want to mine up those patches as quickly as possible. You want them off the map and in the upper right hand corner of the screen where you can spend them.
|
A scan, a mule and a supply calldown all cost 25 energy. All three of which are circumstantially more useful than their counterparts, the only difference is that the mule is much more universally beneficial than the other two, and so is used by many people obsessed with quantifying everything as the benchmark option.
The only truth is that focusing solely on quantifying the benefits of each, or comparing the benefits of that energy to other races macro mechanics, serves to do nothing but narrow your perceived options because of which abilities you determine most "efficient".
Don't bother. Just use each ability when the situation calls for it. Got supply blocked and need to make a unit quickly (holding a push, or starting one) : calldown. Need information / sight? Scan. Need an economy boost, or are in neither of the two beforementioned situations? Mule.
S'all there is to it; being able to quantify what each is worth in some rough mineral value estimation is largely useless given that having that knowledge should never alter your decision in an actual game situation.
|
The opportunity cost of a scan is 270 minerals.
But it isn't a lost opportunity. You will always get those minerals anyway.
Unlike supply calldown, which absolutely is free minerals.
In ideal situations, you would only use supply calldown. It would give you more minerals to work with.
But practically you want to do whatever will minimize your losses.
Will scanning his army save you 270 minerals of walking into a tank line and losing marines? Or will it reveal that you need to save up your energy and use them on scans because it's so much cheaper than throwing down 5 turrets for detection? Should you use those 270 minerals on marines?
It's a complicated issue. It's not that a scan costs you 270 minerals. It's that a mule can cost you much more.
|
On November 30 2010 22:21 Roban wrote: Here's a practical example. I have an Orbital Command. It has 50 energy. I scan. Now I still have an Orbital Command. Now It has 0 energy. Did I just lose a MULE? No, I didn't even have any in the first place. Did I receive a penalty in any way? No, my Orbital Command still functions the same way. The only thing I PAID to scan was 50 energy on my Orbital Command. But you gave up 270 minerals, which you could get with the mule. You would only scan if you you value the scan information / detection above a nice 270 extra income. Often you don't know the scanning value unless you actutally scanned. You still would not spam scans at random locations since it costs you 270 minerals to do so.
This is at least true for the start of the game where you don't care about the total mineral count of your base. Having 270 minerals early often gets you an advantage >270 minerals later on since you can expand faster.
An OC costs 550 minerals plus building time, with just Mules you get 540 minerals. I would not be surprised if some players who play a macro game will start to get additional OCs just to call down mules. The faster you harvest a base, the less time you need to defend it. But we are already in the "what if" discussion; I think it is valid that a mule costs about 270 minerals even if you pay 50 OC energy.
|
On November 30 2010 22:58 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 22:21 Roban wrote: Here's a practical example. I have an Orbital Command. It has 50 energy. I scan. Now I still have an Orbital Command. Now It has 0 energy. Did I just lose a MULE? No, I didn't even have any in the first place. Did I receive a penalty in any way? No, my Orbital Command still functions the same way. The only thing I PAID to scan was 50 energy on my Orbital Command. But you gave up 270 minerals, which you could get with the mule. You would only scan if you you value the scan information / detection above a nice 270 extra income. Often you don't know the scanning value unless you actutally scanned. You still would not spam scans at random locations since it costs you 270 minerals to do so. This is at least true for the start of the game where you don't care about the total mineral count of your base. Having 270 minerals early often gets you an advantage >270 minerals later on since you can expand faster. An OC costs 550 minerals plus building time, with just Mules you get 540 minerals. I would not be surprised if some players who play a macro game will start to get additional OCs just to call down mules. The faster you harvest a base, the less time you need to defend it. But we are already in the "what if" discussion; I think it is valid that a mule costs about 270 minerals even if you pay 50 OC energy. Wrong.
People have been describing the opportunity cost. The cost being : Get 270 minerals a little faster from the current minerals remaining at the base, or get a scan and save those 270 minerals till x scv trips/future mule trips later
When you call down a mule is 270 minerals extracted from your mineral total? Nope. Is it taken away from any of the mineral spots on the games? Nope. Do you lose slightly faster mining? Yes.
You arent losing ANY MONEY WHAT SO EVER FOR THE ENTIRE GAME, just because you scan instead of a mule.
|
On November 30 2010 22:45 Slayer91 wrote: if I were terran, I'd trade my mules for inject larva ANY DAY. You get free larva/creep/heal from a queen, for energy, and it costs nothing. Queen spells do not cost nothing. Especially early in the game you have to decide if you begin with creep turmor planting or if you need 4 more larvae. You cannot do both at the same time, you are giving up an option to get another one. That is the cost of your decision, even if you pay with energy.
|
On November 30 2010 22:56 GoldenH wrote: The opportunity cost of a scan is 270 minerals.
But it isn't a lost opportunity. You will always get those minerals anyway.
They're lost to you if you lose the game.
The whole map has what - 100 000 minerals on it? Saying that a MULE doesn't give you 270 minerals because you'll get them later anyway is like saying battlecruisers are cheap because you have 100k minerals. It's that silly.
I mean it's like arguing - don't waste minerals on SCV's - you'll mine the same amount no matter how many you have.
The argument makes no sense.
On November 30 2010 23:05 arb wrote: You arent losing ANY MONEY WHAT SO EVER FOR THE ENTIRE GAME, just because you scan instead of a mule.
I save for scans. Opponent MULE's. Opponent attacks early and with 5 more marines than I have and I lose everything... how do I go on to mine those minerals?
|
On November 30 2010 23:05 arb wrote: Wrong.
People have been describing the opportunity cost. The cost being : Get 270 minerals a little faster from the current minerals remaining at the base, or get a scan and save those 270 minerals till x scv trips/future mule trips later
When you call down a mule is 270 minerals extracted from your mineral total? Nope. Is it taken away from any of the mineral spots on the games? Nope. Do you lose slightly faster mining? Yes.
You arent losing ANY MONEY WHAT SO EVER FOR THE ENTIRE GAME, just because you scan instead of a mule.
After 90 seconds, that answer is yes. And it only becomes no once you've mined out that entire base.
It is an actual cost after 90 seconds. You lost those minerals because you never MULED, and after 90 seconds, that scan COST you 240-270 minerals.... UNTIL the base is mined out.
On November 30 2010 22:43 arb wrote: You arent losing the minerals, they are still there.
Jesus this is a pointless argument
You didn't actual counter what I said... You just reworded what I said so the meaning changed, then called the argument stupid.
If they are still there when the game ends (I.e. the location you muled hasn't expired) then you indeed have lost those minerals, and those scans that weren't mules cost you 240-270 minerals each in total income for the game.
On November 30 2010 22:46 ltortoise wrote: I'm sorry but this is false.
Minerals are worth more the earlier in the game it is. I can only use the minerals once I've mined them, they don't do me any good sitting in a patch. The whole goal is to mine as quickly as possible.
I never understood people who act like "oh you don't get more minerals you just get them faster."
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. TO GET THEM FASTER.
You want to mine up those patches as quickly as possible. You want them off the map and in the upper right hand corner of the screen where you can spend them.
I agree with everything you wrote except for the "I'm sorry but this is false" part.
Nothing you posted actually is in conflict with anything I posted. I agree the point is to get them faster. The argument at hand is whether a scan costs you 240-270 minerals or it doesn't.
My argument says that you do get an extra 240-270 minerals until you mine out that base... and MOST Of the time, you don't mine out a base, so it IS extra income in MOST games.
You essentially called my argument false, then wrote a supporting opinion.
|
A storm used on Marines cost the Protoss about 500 Minerals because it could have killed 10 Scvs when placed in a mineral line. I guess I will too open a thread for this.
|
There's an idea from economics that says that money now is worth more than money later. There is some discount factor δ, with 0 < δ < 1, such that if you get, say, 270 minerals now it's worth 270 minerals but if you will get them 1 time step later, it's only worth 270δ now.
The exact value of δ is not known and probably changes depending on game situations. A MULE mines 270 minerals over a somewhat short period of time, but you won't have those 270 minerals when you mine out all your bases. When you mine out, however, is so far ahead in the future that 270δ^t is such a small number that it's almost right to say a scan "costs" 270 minerals. Although I'd put the value slightly less, because a MULE doesn't gather instantaneously and there is actually a chance you'll mine out at some point.
People who argue that the MULE is just a loan don't know what they're talking about. It's an interest-free loan that you don't have to pay back for a very, very long time (as long as you keep taking expansions anyway...) which is almost as good as the money straight up.
|
Why do you folks still argue? It has no mineral cost, it just reduces your possible income. With mule your income the next 30 seconds is 9 minerals per second higher (don't know the exact numbers, never cared) and with a scan it's not. There are no costs (except for energy) involved.
Yes, if you scan and do nothing else then compared to using a mule and not doing anything else you end up with 270 minerals less 30 seconds later, but if you do neither then you don't have less minerals and you don't have scouting information either.
Just use scans if you want to know what he does and mules if you already know.
|
The value of a mule is less than 270 mienrals as you dont get the minerals instantly (and the fact that you mine out your minerals a bit faster counts a bit as well). End of discussion plz.
|
On November 30 2010 23:12 thenexusp wrote: There's an idea from economics that says that money now is worth more than money later. There is some discount factor δ, with 0 < δ < 1, such that if you get, say, 270 minerals now it's worth 270 minerals but if you will get them 1 time step later, it's only worth 270δ now.
The exact value of δ is not known and probably changes depending on game situations. A MULE mines 270 minerals over a somewhat short period of time, but you won't have those 270 minerals when you mine out all your bases. When you mine out, however, is so far ahead in the future that 270δ^t is such a small number that it's almost right to say a scan "costs" 270 minerals. Although I'd put the value slightly less, because a MULE doesn't gather instantaneously and there is actually a chance you'll mine out at some point.
People who argue that the MULE is just a loan don't know what they're talking about. It's an interest-free loan that you don't have to pay back for a very, very long time (as long as you keep taking expansions anyway...) which is almost as good as the money straight up.
This is a great way to look at it, and thanks for sharing this.
On November 30 2010 23:18 Hider wrote: The value of a mule is less than 270 mienrals as you dont get the minerals instantly (and the fact that you mine out your minerals a bit faster counts a bit as well). End of discussion plz.
This thread is debating whether a Scan is equal to a mule is equal to 240-270 minerals... not whether the Value of a Mule is equal 270 minerals.
|
On November 30 2010 23:08 mlbrandow wrote: You essentially called my argument false, then wrote a supporting opinion.
I called it false because you are arguing that the cost of scanning RETROACTIVELY drops to zero upon mining out.
That isn't true.
Minerals NOW is better than minerals LATER. This is basic economics and basic Starcraft macro. If it wasn't the case, nobody would bother to make workers since you could just get all your minerals "eventually."
|
nothing is free in starcraft
|
Econ 101 tells us a scan is worth more than a mule when it's used and a mule is worth more than a scan when it is used. Oh wait, did I just get trolled?
|
The best way to look at is this. It's not about minerals gained or minerals lost, but about winning the game. Minerals is just one path, out of many, to get there. Scan gives you information which can be key in getting that win. If you need to know what tech/units he has, then scan is a far better investment than minerals because it helps you win the game. If you think you can get by without any information, then MULEs are a better investment. It's not something you can quantify because winning is not a formula.
|
On November 30 2010 23:08 mlbrandow wrote:After 90 seconds, that answer is yes. And it only becomes no once you've mined out that entire base.
It is an actual cost after 90 seconds. You lost those minerals because you never MULED, and after 90 seconds, that scan COST you 240-270 minerals.... UNTIL the base is mined out.
It should be clear that this is different from a cost. A marine has an actual cost, because 50 minerals is subtracted from your balance. Now suppose I could warp in marines instantly and each one would decrease my income by 50 minerals over 90 seconds. So I warp in 10 marines and rush my opponent to death. Now how did that happen if the cost is still the same?
|
On November 30 2010 23:18 Hider wrote: The value of a mule is less than 270 mienrals as you dont get the minerals instantly (and the fact that you mine out your minerals a bit faster counts a bit as well). End of discussion plz. An early Mule gives you more than 270 minerals in the long run. The extra 270 minerals (over an amount of time) enable you to expand faster or saturate your main faster, yielding in more than extra 270 minerals at a later time (unless the game is so long that every base is completely mined out.)
|
On November 30 2010 23:44 0mar wrote: The best way to look at is this. It's not about minerals gained or minerals lost, but about winning the game. Minerals is just one path, out of many, to get there. Scan gives you information which can be key in getting that win. If you need to know what tech/units he has, then scan is a far better investment than minerals because it helps you win the game. If you think you can get by without any information, then MULEs are a better investment. It's not something you can quantify because winning is not a formula.
Of course. But cost is the currency we use to compare two different actions. If a cloaked banshee's in our base - a sweep's suddenly worth more than the 270 minerals a mule would give, so we use that. If it's not, and we have no urgent need to scan (ie not pushing out or checking tech), it's not worth more than the 270 minerals a mule would give so we mule instead.
An easy way of saying that is that a sweep costs 270 minerals. If it's going to return more than that in value, take it. If it isn't, don't. Mule instead.
|
Depends on timings really, I'm sure it's a general consensus that the very first 50 energy should be dropped on a MULE 100% of the time as you should be safely scouting with a worker within that time frame.
Is a Mule worth 270 minerals? Only in opportunity cost divided by 'time'. With that argument it's not worthwhile to scan your army to get rid of a 50/100 Observer but denying information can be crucial to a game winning strategy so often times it is worth it, if you can't pop out a raven in any near future. 'Preferably' I use a Ghost EMP (75 Energy if you have 2 or more ghosts is nothing) to take it out but sometimes it's hard to aim at the ground under a moving obs unless you're squinting so your attention to detail needs to be pretty high but not impossibly so.
I found that a lot of players who use Mules perfectly and constantly as a macro mechanic (just as a Protoss player who Chronos @ 25 energy) will often be thrown off by surprise plays and have trouble adapting to their macro when they are forced to scan instead of mule- At least at the non-professional level.
My personal experience with Terran feels mineral starved especially in TvP with heavy bio + tech if I don't mule properly and scan just to discover that he placed his tech in a random spot to throw off scan scouting. I usually have to sacrifice a production cycle on a building if I'm macroing properly but it's so satisfying and worthwhile to scan in a TON of cases to save your ass.
|
If a scan would be really free, you would have no disadvantage if you waste it. Since no good player just waste a scan, it is not free
The same can be said the other way around. If the mule would be free, you would have no disadvantage if you waste it If you waste a mule, you loose a scan wich is definatly a disadvantage Its just you get to choose from 3 abilities, sometimes one is more valuable then the other
The value of the scan in minerals is impossible to calculate, The general value of the info it will give can only be estimated i guess by good players, but its fair to say that everyone who scans values a scan higher then a mule at that point in the game
What is the value of the mule? It mines 270 minerals but in most cases thoose are minerals you would have gotten annyway It merely sets you ahead in time on gathering minerals This is extremely important in early game where minerals are limited but it becomes less important during mid game when players have ~ 50 suvs mining minerals, minerals are piling up and some bases are mined out And i wouldnt value the scan at 270 minerals at that point In some lategame situations the mule could be worth 270 minerals again, for exampel imagine taking a verry risky expo wich you are only be able to defend for a short time Mass muless will allow you to mine alot from such an expension contrary to suvs
Suply depot call down This seem straightforward to calculate the value Its a clear 100 minerals+ the added value of not needing an suv to build it (~ 25 minerals?) and the advantage of instand suply wich is often invaluable Manny players will go to 200 suply in games and when at 200 suply the call dowb suply basicly looses its value untill a suply depot is destroyed
early game a scan costs you 270 minerals mid game a scan cost you 125 minerals late game a scan cost you annywhere from 0 to 270 minerals
|
On November 30 2010 23:05 arb wrote: People have been describing the opportunity cost. The cost being : Get 270 minerals a little faster from the current minerals remaining at the base, or get a scan and save those 270 minerals till x scv trips/future mule trips later
When you call down a mule is 270 minerals extracted from your mineral total? Nope. Is it taken away from any of the mineral spots on the games? Nope. Do you lose slightly faster mining? Yes.
You arent losing ANY MONEY WHAT SO EVER FOR THE ENTIRE GAME, just because you scan instead of a mule. There is no point in saving minerals for later harvest since the amount of harvestable mineral patches is (usually) not a limiting factor. Having 270 minerals now (or, to be precise, in a short time from now) is considered better than getting the minerals at a later time. You also can use the 270 extra minerals to boost your harvest count or to expand, yielding in beeing even more ahead than by just 270 minerals.
|
On November 30 2010 23:07 Almania wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 22:56 GoldenH wrote: The opportunity cost of a scan is 270 minerals.
But it isn't a lost opportunity. You will always get those minerals anyway. They're lost to you if you lose the game. The whole map has what - 100 000 minerals on it? Saying that a MULE doesn't give you 270 minerals because you'll get them later anyway is like saying battlecruisers are cheap because you have 100k minerals. It's that silly. I mean it's like arguing - don't waste minerals on SCV's - you'll mine the same amount no matter how many you have. The argument makes no sense.
Sometimes you should not make SCVs. It depends on when you can expand. If you are denied taking your third you shouldn't have enough scvs for four bases.
Other races seem to understand this. Why do you maynard workers? So that you can mine from all your mineral patches longer. That's so important that it's worth the 'cost' of not mining for several seconds. Bursts of income are nice but it is sustained income that is most important. Constantly using mules = higher sustained income. occasional use of scan = burst of lower income.
People really should play low money maps more. It gives them an appreciation of how to efficiently mine a map. I'm not sure how it is in SC2, but in SC1 Zerg was the least efficient with their money, on a low money map they would die when they ran out of expansions to take. Do you want to lose just because you wanted an advantage NOW instead of thinking long term? Make that scan WORTH those 270 minerals, and if its not, eventually, you'll break even.
|
The only problem with this scan cost issue is in fact that terran HAVE options when they want to spend the CC energy. In other words if the CC had only the hability to cast a scan OR call down a MULE terrans wouldn't worry about the 'cost' of those abilities.
|
On November 30 2010 21:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: If a DT kills 300 minerals worth of your units because you didn't save scans then you'd regret it. Sometimes that extra knowledge gained is worth more than 270 minerals. Exactly, intel is important
|
Scan has an opportunity cost of 270 minerals. In some occasions, the value of a scan will be greater than the opportunity of a mule and so one is justified in using the scan. Starcraft is a game about decision making and this is one of those decisions.
It's actual cost is 50 energy.
|
I would say it is not free. It might not be 270 mineral either. As OP said, it will count as 270 mineral only if you playing on money map. on normal map you just get it faster, it is not extra.
I my opinion is it is not free. and it doesn't cost 270. What it is cost is the opertunity to get 270 mineral faster.
|
This whole argument seems to be between people who understand cost to mean just a word that refers to currency, and those who view cost more abstractly. I think we can avoid the word cost altogether and come up with a better way of looking at it:
The question isn't "should I spend 300 minerals to scan" The question is "what is more beneficial to me in this game, a scan or a mule." Thats what you need to ask yourself in game, and you'll learn over time by choosing right and wrong in different scenarios which is the better choice in any given game state
I think its really fairly simple and all of this reference to minerals this and cost that is just missing the point.
|
On December 01 2010 00:29 pedduck wrote: I would say it is not free. It might not be 270 mineral either. As OP said, it will count as 270 mineral only if you playing on money map. on normal map you just get it faster, it is not extra.
I my opinion is it is not free. and it doesn't cost 270. What it is cost is the opertunity to get 270 mineral faster.
Agreed, which is why I don't understand what people are debating about... It does not cost minerals, it just wastes a chance to get EXTRA minerals. That is all a mule is, extra minerals that you would not get as quickly without the mule.
|
On November 30 2010 22:00 TrueIsAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:29 [F_]aths wrote:On November 30 2010 21:21 TrueIsAwesome wrote:It gets more complicated with Zerg. If you build a hatch, you need 300 minerals plus 50 minerals for the drone replacement plus the travel time in which the drone is not mining plus a larva. But with the drone morphed to a hatch, you get 1 supply back, which is worth an 1/8 overlord, meaning it saves you 12.5 minerals. Using your logic this should say "plus the time in which the drone is not mining", which is the rest of the game duration. That's 40 minerals a minute in a base that isn't fully saturated, which would result in all the zerg buildings "costing" a lot more. Buff zerg? Scan costs 50 energy, nothing more. A drone can (and should) be replaced. Taking drones from a base which is not over-saturated to morph a structure and not replacing them is one of the greatest issue any zerg beginner faces. If you not rebuild that drone for the expo hatch, you indeed forfeit an awful lot of minerals. The 50 energy for the terran scan or mule roughly worth 270 minerals. You would not spend the energy on scan if you don't expect to get an advantage worth at least 270 minerals. You forfeit the Mule to get the scan. Therefore the scan costs a Mule (and vice versa, a Mule costs a scan. This punishes a too greedy terran which is not saving energy to scan a DT.) See below for replacing a lost worker, it's a bit different with zerg mechanics, but the concept is the same. I believe the bolded part is the crux of this discussion. A Mule is not worth 270 minerals, since the minerals you get from using the mule will result in you mining out the base faster. You gain income now, but lose some later when you mine out faster. The sum is zero. If mineral patches had infinite amount of mineral in them, you would be correct in saying that a scan costs 270 minerals. Yes, you don't magically get more out of a standard base than the usual 12000 minerals, that is true. A Mule will force you to expand earlier since you are mined out faster. But with the strong economy you can get through the mule, you should be able to expand faster anyways and get even more workers / Mules (from additional Orbital Commands.) In a normal game of about 20 or 25 game-minutes you should always find a place to expand. Mineral patches should not be the limiting factor. Even if they minerals would be limited (let's say you have your base and that's it, no expansions anywhere) you are better off if you get the minerals earlier.
On November 30 2010 22:00 TrueIsAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:23 [F_]aths wrote:On November 30 2010 21:17 osten wrote: Yeah, but you are lying. A scan does not cost minerals. OC energy is not limited. I'm just gonna give up now.. I agree with everything you said but please word your stuff so that you are not straight up lying to people's faces, it destroys your credability. I am not lying. If you fly with Phoenixes to a terran base and you excpect that you can lift and shoot one worker unit before the enemy reacts, do you kill an SCV or a Mule ? To replace an SVC costs 50 minerals plus the time to rebuild in which the replacement SCV is not yet mining. A mule could be on its last way or it could just have started it work. We consider its worth 270 / 2 = 135 minerals, and that is why it is best to lift and kill the Mule instead of an SVC. While the SVC costs minerals and the Mule just energy, the worth of the SVC and the Mule can both be converted to minerals. The SCV vs Mule is a bit situational, but if your opponent is not fully saturated, killing the SCV is better. He will lose income from that single SCV until he reaches full saturation, not just the income until his next SCV built. He cannot replace that missing SCV (until saturation) if we assume constant worker production. Good point.
|
On December 01 2010 00:16 GoldenH wrote: Why do you maynard workers? So that you can mine from all your mineral patches longer.
Um no - I maynard workers for the same reason most other people do - to mine faster. The third SCV on each patch, whilst still boosting income, is nowhere near as efficient as the first two. By maynarding your workers you move all these low-income 3rd SCVs to the expansion.
Maynarding workers is all about getting minerals faster - same as mules. This actually reduces the amount of time you can mine from your mineral patches for - but don't worry, that's the point of the exercise. Get those minerals spendable asap.
On December 01 2010 00:31 GreEny K wrote: Agreed, which is why I don't understand what people are debating about... It does not cost minerals, it just wastes a chance to get EXTRA minerals. That is all a mule is, extra minerals that you would not get as quickly without the mule.
The exact same thing can of course be said about getting more than 6 workers. All the majority of them are is miners, which mine extra minerals that you would not get as quickly had you stayed on 6. Which goes to show how important the chance to get EXTRA minerals is - you should jump on it unless you have a really good reason not to (cloaked banshee in base / intel required on their tech).
|
On December 01 2010 00:40 Almania wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 00:16 GoldenH wrote: Why do you maynard workers? So that you can mine from all your mineral patches longer. Um no - I maynard workers for the same reason most other people do - to mine faster. The third SCV on each patch, whilst still boosting income, is nowhere near as efficient as the first two. By maynarding your workers you move all these low-income 3rd SCVs to the expansion. Maynarding workers is all about getting minerals faster - same as mules. This actually reduces the amount of time you can mine from your mineral patches for - but don't worry, that's the point of the exercise. Get those minerals spendable asap.
Sorry no. Maynarding makes you lose minerals, not get them faster. If you have more than 2 per patch then pulling any extra off will increase your minerals in the long run. But most people will pull off much more. If it was really all about more minerals what people would do is take any extra off and put them on the expo, then rally all your CC/Nexus/Hatch to the expansion. Instead people take about 1/3 of their workers and rally all new workers to the closest minerals to better balance mineral patch consumption between bases. If you aren't doing this then you aren't getting the full benefit of maynarding.
|
On December 01 2010 00:47 GoldenH wrote: Sorry no. Maynarding makes you lose minerals, not get them faster. If you have more than 2 per patch then pulling any extra off will increase your minerals in the long run. But most people will pull off much more. If it was really all about more minerals what people would do is take any extra off and put them on the expo, then rally all your CC/Nexus/Hatch to the expansion.
Except then you pay the time cost of maynarding on every single worker you make from your main. May as well maynard a lot of workers to begin with and then rally each nexus etc to the closest minerals as it's a lot less clumsy. Although you're right - going back to "a mineral now is worth more than a mineral later" it is in theory better to distribute the maynarding over the game rather than at once, but that doesn't mean it works in practice where there's harrasses and an actual game etc to worry about.
Although even saying that you'll note that the econ zerg builds popping up lately (see every zerg BO thread since Lomilar's evo chamber program..) typically only maynard 2 workers. But then that could be a Zerg thing, seeing as the main hatch doesn't have to be pumping drones.
|
On December 01 2010 01:02 Almania wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 00:47 GoldenH wrote: Sorry no. Maynarding makes you lose minerals, not get them faster. If you have more than 2 per patch then pulling any extra off will increase your minerals in the long run. But most people will pull off much more. If it was really all about more minerals what people would do is take any extra off and put them on the expo, then rally all your CC/Nexus/Hatch to the expansion. Except then you pay the time cost of maynarding on every single worker you make from your main. May as well maynard a lot of workers to begin with and then rally each nexus etc to the closest minerals as it's a lot less clumsy. Although you're right - going back to "a mineral now is worth more than a mineral later" it is in theory better to distribute the maynarding over the game rather than at once, but that doesn't mean it works in practice where there's harrasses and an actual game etc to worry about. Although even saying that you'll note that the econ zerg builds popping up lately (see every zerg BO thread since Lomilar's evo chamber program..) typically only maynard 2 workers. But then that could be a Zerg thing, seeing as the main hatch doesn't have to be pumping drones.
People seem to be getting confused about Maynarding. You Maynard because you want the CC at the expansion to produce the worker for that expansion. You want your nat to produce workers for your nat and your main to produce workers for you main. If you don't maynard that means that both CCs are producing for the expansion/nat. This means you lose all the time it takes for you workers produced at your main to get to the mineral patches and start mining.
Maynarding is not about producing a higher income immediately. It's about not losing all that time from worker travel time. You will lose income when you maynard but you will gain over time.
|
Well, if I seperated OP question. 1. IS scan really free? I think most of us agree that the answer is no. There will be at least an oportunity cost. We are actually not losing 270 mineral but we lost the oportunity to get it ealier.
2. Is the cost (or oportunity cost) equal to 270. Can not answer this. for early game when worker count is low, may be yes.
|
scan is not free and does not cost 270 minerals it cost 150 minerals ot upgrade to orbital CC and you can use it unlimited times depending on how you want to spent your cc energy. The 270 minerals doesn't go away when you use scan.
the 100th reply xD
|
You are all arguing over semantics...
Real cost; 50 energy Opportunity cost; Mule or Scan or Supply (only 1) --If mule is selected; No scan or supply --If Scan is selected; No mule or supply --If Supply is selected; No scan or mule
That's the cost part. Now let's talk forgone opportunity; --If mule is selected; You may die to cloacked units and will be down 8 instant supply. --If Scan is selected; You will not get 270 extra minerals and will be down 8 instant supply. --If Supply is selected; You will not get 270 extra minerals and may die to cloacked units.
Those that are Terran and say that a forgone mule is worth 270 minerals are only partially correct. A mule is also worth negative 8 supply and the danger of being killed by cloaked units.
|
Scan costs nothing but 50 energy. It lowers your mineral income compared to getting a mule, however it costs nothing.
|
That it pays 270 over a period of time isn't relevant when you make the decision to scan or mule. Would you pay 270 for something that gives back 270 over 30 minutes?
You'd have to discount every "cashflow" (everytime the mule brings back minerals) by an "interest rate" (you could calculate with the speed at wich SVCs mine, and how much they cost), and of course even then it would not be completely accurate because of saturation issues, etc.
But as I understand it, a mule mines as much as 4 scvs right? And a scan only deprives you of these 4 scvs for a limited time.
So I'd say the real present cost has to be lower than 200, I'd put it around 150.
Or maybe someone will tell me I'm completely wrong, I don't know
|
If you're pretending that a mule is a free 270 minerals then you are ignoring you're mineral reserves being depleated by that much. It doesn't give you the minerals it makes it so you have the minerals sooner rather than later. This is importiant early in the game but usually minerals don't matter much after the 8 minute mark and intelligence is more importiant. The only OC power that gives you something worth reasorces for free is supply drop. It saves you 100 minerals and doesn't deplete your researves like mules.
|
The fact that the minerals are mined out faster is irrelevant for most games. This would only be an issue if you were severely restricted (say to one base) and you aren't allowed to attack until all your minerals are mined out. You're constantly expanding in a match so the amount of minerals is virtually unlimited. What matters is the speed at which you obtain them. So over that 90 second period, the 270 minerals does in fact disappear.
Why does a mule cost 270 minerals? Because regardless of the specific situation and how much more beneficial using a scan or supply drop would be, using a mule and obtaining that 270 minerals is the most economically efficient option to take. By not using your mule you are sacrificing your potential income - which makes it a cost.
For example, let's say you're being paid royalties at a constant rate. Now you have the option to sleep or to do a side job - both of which are available to you. Neither of which "costs" any money, but in fact if you choose to sleep, you won't be receiving the money you would otherwise get from doing the side job. So if you sleep, it is in fact costing you money that you would have otherwise earned. The fact that you'll eventually get that money from your royalties is irrelevant.
|
This thread is kind of funny. Is there anyone in here on the "Scan is free" side who has taken an Economics course?
|
Calgary25939 Posts
You wrote 2 pages on what should require 2 sentences, tops.
|
I will be having nightmares tonight as a result of some replies to this thread
|
On November 30 2010 22:11 ledarsi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +A solid argument proving what terrans are generally well aware of. People complain about mules being overpowered, when actually they are the weakest of the three macro mechanics under most circumstances. A scan is indeed worth 1 mule, which is 270 minerals, and also means you didnt take advantage of the terran macro mechanic, whereas the protoss and zerg's macro mechanics are in force at all times.
An orbital command can maintain a single mule constantly- it saves exactly enough energy for the next in the time it takes the last one to expire. A mule harvests about 270 minerals over a 90 second period, or about 3 minerals per second, equivalent to 3 scv's. Therefore each orbital command is, assuming you never scan, worth about 3 scv's permanently in exchange for a 150 mineral investment. Completely worth doing, obviously. However that is a flat +3 workers whereas chronoboost is a +50% worker production. For low econ games the mule shines since it is a flat bonus to your worker count, take a look at GSL 3 games using marine+scv rushes to keep both players on low economy, and counting on the mule to give the terran an advantage. The other two races have exponentially scaling macro mechanics. Especially zerg.
Even without queens, zerg spawns larvae once every 13 seconds, and the build time on an scv is 17 seconds. Constant drone production out of a single hatchery, no macro mechanic required, results in 1.3 times more workers than the terran. With larvae injections adding 4 larvae every 40 seconds, the resultant value is about 7 larvae every 40 seconds. In that time a terran can make 2.35 workers, and the zerg can have 7. Naturally the zerg also needs these larvae to make military units, but you can't say that the terran economy is excessively powerful when compared with either of the other two sides . A bit OT, but it's good that someone else understands this. Have had long arguments about this, where people keep stating "mule OP lolololo" and I just *facepalm*(though a mule equals 4.5 workers[worker mines 40minerals/min or 0.667 min/s vs 3 min/s of mule]). Heck 1 injection(per OC the terran has) devoted to drones and the zerg is ahead in econ for the rest of the game(aslong as the zerg uses the natural larvae spawn for mostly drones and inject larvae for combat units). Same with toss, CB a nexus for 6min and you are ahead in econ and have CB available free to do what you like, build even better econ than the terran or push units out faster.
Ofcourse both races are built with that in mind, the research time for toss taking forever without CB and buildings costing drones for zerg, but for econ the macro mechanic of terran pales in comparison to the other 2 races.
Oversaturation makes this a bit more tricky though and isn't really calculate able but it indicates that terran is stronger on 1/fewer bases(just like we see ingame).
|
Calldown Supply is the only one that actually creates value from nothing. Scan and mule are both short-term benefits.
Mule lets you mine faster, increasing your income TEMPORARILY for 50 energy.
Scan cost 50 energy and temporarily gives you vision and detection. Choosing a scan vs a mule cost INCOME RATE (minerals per second) not your actual minerals. You will still end up mining those 270 minerals, just slower. It doesn't magically reduce your mineral patch by 270.
Calldown supply effectively generates a free 100 minerals in the form up your depot doubling its supply allowance.
|
I'll trade you for my chronoboost
|
Scans are like bunkers: NOT free.
|
Terran users seem to take mules for granted. That's why they think not getting a mule is a COST rather than an ADVANTAGE.
Of course, the scan has an oppertunity cost of a mule or a supply drop, but that doesn't mean scanning makes you somehow LOSE 270 minerals.
Be thankful and stop whining.
|
sorry, but does anyone seriously claim that scan is free?
it's obvious that a scan costs a mule which can be translated to roughly 270 minerals over 90 seconds.
if you don't use mule then you're going to be ~270 minerals lighter after 90 seconds.
is it really so hard to understand? income = income
On December 01 2010 02:27 rexyrex wrote: Terran users seem to take mules for granted. That's why they think not getting a mule is a COST rather than an ADVANTAGE.
Of course, the scan has an oppertunity cost of a mule or a supply drop, but that doesn't mean scanning makes you somehow LOSE 270 minerals.
Be thankful and stop whining.
it's the same with zerg... creep tumour costs a larva injection and whatever valuation you would associate with that injection would be a legit COST.
|
On December 01 2010 01:29 MilesTeg wrote:That it pays 270 over a period of time isn't relevant when you make the decision to scan or mule. Would you pay 270 for something that gives back 270 over 30 minutes? You'd have to discount every "cashflow" (everytime the mule brings back minerals) by an "interest rate" (you could calculate with the speed at wich SVCs mine, and how much they cost), and of course even then it would not be completely accurate because of saturation issues, etc. But as I understand it, a mule mines as much as 4 scvs right? And a scan only deprives you of these 4 scvs for a limited time. So I'd say the real present cost has to be lower than 200, I'd put it around 150. Or maybe someone will tell me I'm completely wrong, I don't know
Quoting myself, as I guess one other thing to consider is that the mule comes instantly, while one scv takes some time to build, so it's probably worth a little more than I thought.
Anyway it'd be interesting to find out, if someone has the time to do the real calculation.
A good way to think about it, is to ask yourself the question: if I had the choice to pay minerals instead of energy, how much would I be willing to pay at most?
|
This is still being discussed? If you scan, you sacrifice ~270 minerals being mined over the next 90 seconds (not accounting game speed). What you gain is any number of the following: a) security against cloaked/hidden units, b) knowledge of enemy production facilities/economy, c) enemy army composition
To some players, getting a chance at particular information far exceeds the 270 minerals added to infrastructure. You can gain perfect knowledge worth hundreds of minerals and gas, or gain nothing. Knowing where to engage, what you're engaging against, you can't put a real time value on scans like that.
|
I was thinking about this during lunch, and here's what I thought of. It's slight OT, but forgive me for that.
A mule will harvest 240-270 minerals over 90 seconds. A supply call down saves about 120 minerals (SCV building cannot harvest), which is immediate.
If you get a mule, and you are not supply capped, you will need to eventually build a supply depot, which costs 120 minerals which could have saved. However, these 120 minerals are INSTANT savings, whereas the 270 minerals from a MULE are over time.
If we go further, and assume that because the Terran player did not build a supply depot, the benefits from a MULE are actually 140 minerals over 90 seconds, since you would have to build a supply depot.
So basically, heres the run down MULE give 140-270 minerals over time, depending on your supply situation. If you are capped or have a deficit of units, MULES are worth 270 minerals. If you are close to your supply limit, it is actually only worth ~140, but note that this is OVER TIME
Supply depot call down is like spending an instant 120 minerals for no cost. You receive the 100 minerals right away, which is then spent on a supply depot. Over the next 30 seconds, your worker will give you the remaining 20 minerals. Note that a majority of this is INSTANT, some is residual. 120 minerals up front in 90 seconds is a better deal than 140 minerals over 90. Another consideration is space - sometimes, a player wants to save space in their main, so a supply depot call down is worth even more then, but I am not going to put a value on that.
A Scans value is dependent on the amount of information garnered, or the ability to use this to defend yourself. Is a scan worth 270 minerals? Sometimes. But I think I tried to answer if a MULE is worth 270 minerals, and while it might be, it could also only be worth a relative 140 minerals.
I feel like there might be a flaw with this argument, but either way, I think people undervalue supply depot call down.
In practice, I usually use MULEs early game until 7 minutes, then I wait a little until I have enough for a single emergency scan.
|
you people confuse income rate with cost, far too often.
lost mining time is a lower income rate, not a mineral cost. For all races.
|
On December 01 2010 02:54 dudeman001 wrote: This is still being discussed? If you scan, you sacrifice ~270 minerals being mined over the next 90 seconds (not accounting game speed)
What else is there to say than this. This is what the choice between a MULE and scan entails. No disrespect but I honestly don't see how this is 6 pages of discussion. A lot of the arguments going on in here are people arguing over wording but that's it.
|
it's like saying you lose 5k minerals when you have to chose to use the minereal hack or the vision hack, and you can only choose one, and you pick the later.
Plus it's 270 if it's placed on a good mineral field, isnt misplaced initially (happens to pros) can continue mining without being pulled away or killed.
And ultimately your base runs out much quicker.
But yeah all the eco guys explain it scinetificly, so go listen to them
|
It costs you 270 minerals the next minute.
And who cares?
|
Scans cost 50 energy, not 270 minerals. Your not really costing minerals as you are slowing down the collection of 270 minerals in one minute.
|
Technically the only way to be given free minerals is from the depot drops, since that's essentially 100 free minerals that isn't simply transferring the minerals in your inventory(patches). Otherwise you get a present vs future value of the minerals gained from mules.
|
Some of your post logic is a little flawed. Saying that a mule is worth more than 270m because you can use the 270m to set up your economy more quickly is not accurate. If i give you 270m free and clear and you then use those minerals to make SCV's (which you should almost never stop making in the first place) that doesnt mean I gave you more than 270m it means i gave you 270m and you invested it in your economy.
Similarly, if you use the moeny to make 5 more marines which causes you to win a battle which allows you to win the game. It wasn't worth more than 5 marines. It was worth 5 marines.
|
Mules don't cost 270 minerals, they cost 170 minerals because you could have used that energy to call down a supply depot.
|
On December 01 2010 04:38 Barca wrote: Mules don't cost 270 minerals, they cost 170 minerals because you could have used that energy to call down a supply depot.
Huh??
At its best, the energy will give you 270 minerals (the mule). Yeah, you could also take the 100 mineral option, but that does not change the fact that the mule is worth 270...
|
On December 01 2010 04:38 Barca wrote: Mules don't cost 270 minerals, they cost 170 minerals because you could have used that energy to call down a supply depot.
lol... are you serious?
a supply drop costs ~170 minerals over 90 seconds because you could have built a depot and called a mule instead...
|
On December 01 2010 04:53 hoovehand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 04:38 Barca wrote: Mules don't cost 270 minerals, they cost 170 minerals because you could have used that energy to call down a supply depot. lol... are you serious? a supply drop costs ~170 minerals over 90 seconds because you could have built a depot and called a mule instead... You forgot to calculate the lost mining time of the SCV that has to build the depot, and the potentially detrimental effects of having to wait for the supply increase instead of getting it instantly.
|
Think about this senario: If the MULE was on cooldown (didn't use energy) and Scans would automatically deduct 270 minerals from your savings in 90 seconds, what difference would it be from now? Answer: nothing.
The Mule costs you 270 over the next 90 seconds. It doesn't cost 270 minerals RIGHT NOW. Money now is worth more than money later, but the mule gets some of it sooner and some of it later.
The fact that Mules mine out your base quicker means nothing unless you assume that you are unable to mine from another base when one runs out.
|
A MULE has the opportunity cost of an extra 160-180 mins per minute for about 65 in game seconds. That is all.
|
RTS games are all about choices. discussions like this one are usually not helpful because the question is posed in a way that suggests that the benefits of an action do not change over time given the circumstances.
usually whether or not a choice is beneficial depends on what is happening at that point in the game.
there is not a static answer to the comparative value of a mule, a scan, and an insta-depot. the comparative value of each will change over the time of each specific game played based on the actions of the opponent.
something's value is based on its current demand. the value of either a mule, an insta-depot, or a scan is changing each second during a game.
a beneficial discussion would rather be about how to learn to understand when the demand for an instant-depot, a scan, or a mule is most beneficial given the specifics of the current game to make the most of the 50 energy cost.
|
I like this post^^ You cannot compare differences of kind (supply, information, minerals), especially with generally applicable rules in such a circumstantial game.
Why do people act like there is some "fact of the matter" as to whether it's one way or the other?
By scanning or calling down a supply you are cutting economy insofar as you are relinquishing the potential 270 minerals over the next 90 seconds.
OR
By scanning or calling down a supply, you are not effecting your economy because you are relinquishing a free gift of 270 minerals over 90 seconds which is otherwise not a default part of your economy.
There is no cognitive difference between these two views. Or in other words: there is no fact or set of facts about the game that make one true and the other false. The difference is sentiment, nothing more. The main opinion difference is a question of what constitutes the default terran economy while orbital commands are present.
Does a terran economy produce constant MULEs by default, and hence a scan "costs" a MULE? OR does the terran economy default at 0 MULEs throughout the game and hence MULEs are like a "free boost"? See the difference? Pessimism vs Optimism with respect to what is default in the terran economy. It's an insubstantial non-issue often employed in the common banter about MULE imbalance (by both sides).
|
I was being sarcastic... xD
It's the same logic as saying a scan costs 270 minerals since you could have MULE-ed instead.
This thread is nonsense. MULEs, scans, and supply drops all have their places, same as Larvae injection, creep tumor, and transfusion, and like how one must choose whether to chronoboost their Nexus to help speed up their economy, warpgates to help speed up their army production, and tech structures to help speed up upgrades.
|
As some people have already said and are totally correct... it doesn't cost any minerals, it's free, just requires the 50 energy from OC. BUT, you aren't mining as fast. Although you will mine those 270 minerals eventually if you mine your base out. So you'll still get the 270 minerals, just not as fast as the Mule would have got them for you.
That being said I still hate to scan... I'd rather build a Reaper and jump him into their base or send a Marine or spread things around the map (like Depots late game). I love my greedy economic ways Hate wasting a potential Mule.
|
A scan costs 300 minerals in income, but not 300 minerals.
Yes, you will get the minerals eventually. However, you will always get the minerals eventually. If you had one worker, and you mined an expansion for an hour, it would eventually run out. Mining with one worker is in no way viable, though. The goal is to get minerals faster than your opponent.
So yes, there is a cost for using only scans and no mules, and as a result, a cost for using each scan.
|
On December 01 2010 03:40 Ashera wrote: Scans cost 50 energy, not 270 minerals. Your not really costing minerals as you are slowing down the collection of 270 minerals in one minute.
Killing workers slows down the collection of minerals in the same way as using a scan instead of a mule. Only the workers might last to mine the next expansion.
If I kill 10 of your workers now, it means you will be able to afford 10 less marines a minute or two down the line. If I use a scan instead of a mule, the same thing will happen.
If I plan to push at 7 minutes, will I be able to have more marines if I used all scans, or all mules?
|
uhh..so 50 minerals on a marine is better invested into an scv which lasts pretty much all game and can mine thousands of minerals. Right?
Based on your theoretical terms, why doesn't everyone just mass workers?
What I'm saying is, there needs to be a balance in obtaining resources and spending it. That's what starcraft is. Deciding to use a scan or sending a mule down is the same thing. Spend the opportunity on intelligence, or on economy. It's the same thing with chronoboosting. Spend it on probe production or something else? Same thing with queen, spend it on inject so you can make more drones to mine, or on creep tumor or transfuse?
Different situations call for different decisions. A good player makes the better decision.
|
So for detection do we use turrets? Well their immobility and relative frailty makes that not viable.
Or a raven? Well besides the fact that's it's not viable early game, ravens are 100/200 and as gas is more often a limiting factor, this seems more expensive (though there is no direct conversion between the two so that's just my sense not scientific fact).
Overall scan ends up being much more viable as detection to save units/kill other units... That's what I think at least
|
there's nothing free about energy, the whole point of an RTS at least from a macro perspective is that you are making choices which imply costs. the true cost a mule however isn't completely fixed as you dont receive all ur minerals at once (its in small increments), but generally the mule is generally more powerful earlier in the game than later, and also very powerful to make up for the brief income loss when you are maynarding workers from base to base. the only argument i can see about energy being 'free' is that in the long run, energy becomes 'cheaper' since its more or less a renewable resource.
the opportunity cost is always the biggest alternative use of your money, so for a person in different situations it changes. if you are playing optimally and have perfect scouting information (or maybe you think you do), than the scan is wasted and the opportunity cost is 270 min, however if the player is walled up and you anticipate some sort of funny play a scan be more important to spot that cloaked banshee or vital tech structure so that you can counter it.
|
I think it's safe to say that some scans turn out to be worth more than 270/mule, while some scans are less useful. It all comes down to decision-making I guess.
|
On November 30 2010 21:56 mlbrandow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:51 ScythedBlade wrote: So basically, the whole world is wrong when it says the scan costs 270 minerals. You also forget the time interest rate.
IMPORTANT FACT: Essentially, people over-exaggerate to say that a scan costs 270 minerals. Usually when people say a marine cost 50 minerals (in actuality 50 minerals, 1 supply, and time from barrack), the scan notation of saying cost minerals is actually incorrect.
Instead of always trying to concentrate on spamming MULEs, view it as this. If you need some extra minerals for a short period of time, get a MULE. Want a scan? Scan. Want supply? Throw down a supply! So instead of people sounding like they actually know what they're talking about (those who keep pointing out that scans actually *cost* minerals), all of these are equivalent to 50 energy on a orbital command, aka, *cost* 50 energy. No, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to note a scan does not COST 270 minerals.
The better way is, go define your own utility function. The opportunity cost of scanning is the utility gained from getting a MULE (which is 270 minerals, if you want your utility function to be all jsut about minerals =.=, but that's probably not it).
TL;DR: To everyone who tries to abuse economics without actually knowing, please stop saying a scan costs 270 minerals. It's throwing people off from understanding what the mechanic really is. Respectfully, maybe you should return to economics class . The scan very clearly costs you 240-270 minerals over 90 seconds until your base is mined out. It's not some horrible logic. This answer is very clear and simple. You don't need utility functions or harmonic mean algorithms or any voodoo shanti shanti. It gets you minerals more quickly from the wealth of minerals at a base location. But the only time you break even is when you mine out the base. At that time, the scan from 5-10 minutes ago would be considered free, because you'd have earned that income with normal worker production. Potentially if you maynard well, you may not "refund" those minerals until the 20-25 minute mark of a game. A scan isn't free, it costs you 240-270 minerals (until you mine out that location). In any situation where a base isn't completely mined out before the end of the game, you never recoup that cost. And it is a COST, because after 90 seconds you would have had that extra 240-270, and because you scanned, you DON'T have that. The potential income after 90 seconds because lost income once that time has passed.
=.= You should learn econ first. It's like saying my coupon bond is worth 1000 dollars at the end because it pays 100 dollars each month for 10 months. I'm already saying "Stop saying it costs 240-270", because it actually doesn't.
And with the utility function, it's essentially what other people are saying. It's the formal way of saying "Sometimes, you might probably want to scan or even drop a supply addon INSTEAD of a MULE". My post basically fixes everything to be correct =/
|
I can't believe people are still arguing this, it's been going since beta.
The scan does not cost you 270 minerals. The scan does not cost you 270 minerals. The scan does not cost you 270 minerals.
The scan is "free" via a currency that is generated by time.
You have a choice between a Depot Drop, A Scan, or a Mule every X seconds. These are all nice little perks of having an orbital command.
Something "free" does not cost you anything.
|
yeah. i'm pretty tired of these threads getting made.
It's pretty clear that if you use a scan, you could've used a mule. And therefore you could've gotten 270 minerals, assuming ideal conditions. It's not a direct cost, and the mule doesn't instantly deliver 270 minerals, and it has some drawbacks - like mining out your mineral patches quicker.
Better questions are at what number of scv's does your mineral income balance out so that using a scan won't affect your ability to produce units or scv's.
For example if you used your first 50 energy to scan, that'd be a pretty big setback since that might delay a factory building or a supply depot.
You cannot put a price on scouting... whether it's successful or a fail. Every scan you use should be targeted such that you learn something, even if it's not gamebreaking. Scanning a guy's ramp might tell you about his army composition, or he might have it moved away... But it'll at least tell you how well his ramp is covered.
|
When you scan, you pay the opportunity cost of a supply drop or mule. So you aren't LOSING anything, you just are deciding to get something that doesn't give you anything for the same amount of the same resource.
|
If you use a mule you don't lose or gain any minerals from your crystals. You get 270ish of them faster. If you use a supply drop, you will have 100 minerals more than your opponent if the map mines out equally. If you scan, your minerals aren't affected, though you don't get the other options.
|
It doesn't cost you 270 minerals, but you lose potential gain of a faster 270 minerals. The 270 minerals doesn't go away from the patch, but you could get that 270 faster if you didnt'.
|
On December 01 2010 04:53 hoovehand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 04:38 Barca wrote: Mules don't cost 270 minerals, they cost 170 minerals because you could have used that energy to call down a supply depot. lol... are you serious? a supply drop costs ~170 minerals over 90 seconds because you could have built a depot and called a mule instead... Supply drop is the only thing thats actually sorta free, you dont have to spend anything but 50 energy, and you get 8 supply and essentially save 100 minerals.
or something
|
Adopt, Adapt and Improve
|
On November 30 2010 21:22 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: If a DT kills 300 minerals worth of your units because you didn't save scans then you'd regret it. Sometimes that extra knowledge gained is worth more than 270 minerals.
Great point.
The hypothetical MULE the OP is *sacrificing* is not an argument, just as the above post completely counters it with the same logic. So because of this, we should stop playing the hypothetical mineral game and just note that a scan costs exactly 50 energy, no minerals, and no gas. Just like how it doesn't make you automatically lose a base *if only you had gotten a Planetary Fortress instead of an Orbital Command to protect against that zergling rush*. (In other words, OCs don't make you forfeit bases. You could play these nonsensical games all day long by simply using hindsight bias to pick strategies that would have worked better than ones you happened to choose.)
People need to stop extrapolating and just be happy with having extra options.
|
On December 01 2010 07:49 iloahz wrote: I think it's safe to say that some scans turn out to be worth more than 270/mule, while some scans are less useful. It all comes down to decision-making I guess.
its all based on your hypothesis, your educated guess)). Mules are more valuable in beginning game more than late game
|
On December 01 2010 09:28 ScythedBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 21:56 mlbrandow wrote:On November 30 2010 21:51 ScythedBlade wrote: So basically, the whole world is wrong when it says the scan costs 270 minerals. You also forget the time interest rate.
IMPORTANT FACT: Essentially, people over-exaggerate to say that a scan costs 270 minerals. Usually when people say a marine cost 50 minerals (in actuality 50 minerals, 1 supply, and time from barrack), the scan notation of saying cost minerals is actually incorrect.
Instead of always trying to concentrate on spamming MULEs, view it as this. If you need some extra minerals for a short period of time, get a MULE. Want a scan? Scan. Want supply? Throw down a supply! So instead of people sounding like they actually know what they're talking about (those who keep pointing out that scans actually *cost* minerals), all of these are equivalent to 50 energy on a orbital command, aka, *cost* 50 energy. No, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to note a scan does not COST 270 minerals.
The better way is, go define your own utility function. The opportunity cost of scanning is the utility gained from getting a MULE (which is 270 minerals, if you want your utility function to be all jsut about minerals =.=, but that's probably not it).
TL;DR: To everyone who tries to abuse economics without actually knowing, please stop saying a scan costs 270 minerals. It's throwing people off from understanding what the mechanic really is. Respectfully, maybe you should return to economics class . The scan very clearly costs you 240-270 minerals over 90 seconds until your base is mined out. It's not some horrible logic. This answer is very clear and simple. You don't need utility functions or harmonic mean algorithms or any voodoo shanti shanti. It gets you minerals more quickly from the wealth of minerals at a base location. But the only time you break even is when you mine out the base. At that time, the scan from 5-10 minutes ago would be considered free, because you'd have earned that income with normal worker production. Potentially if you maynard well, you may not "refund" those minerals until the 20-25 minute mark of a game. A scan isn't free, it costs you 240-270 minerals (until you mine out that location). In any situation where a base isn't completely mined out before the end of the game, you never recoup that cost. And it is a COST, because after 90 seconds you would have had that extra 240-270, and because you scanned, you DON'T have that. The potential income after 90 seconds because lost income once that time has passed. =.= You should learn econ first. It's like saying my coupon bond is worth 1000 dollars at the end because it pays 100 dollars each month for 10 months. I'm already saying "Stop saying it costs 240-270", because it actually doesn't. And with the utility function, it's essentially what other people are saying. It's the formal way of saying "Sometimes, you might probably want to scan or even drop a supply addon INSTEAD of a MULE". My post basically fixes everything to be correct =/
Everyone should listen to this man:
Scan DOES NOT and CAN NOT COST anything!
It is impossible for a choice between two options to cost something as you are in fact being supplied with a choice between two potentially lucrative options. You are not being charged or penalized for your choice. MULEs do allow for increased gathering over time but saying not using them COSTS is like saying if I gave the option for 50 toe nail clippings (as you produce these naturally and don't pay for them) to receive either a 270 dollar bill or a chance to see the inside workings of a company whose stock might jump, the said "look" is not charging you money and it sure as hell doesn't "cost" anything. Is it a choice you make? Yes but as you are not giving anything of monetary value to the source it doesn't cost you.
Once again: Scan DOES NOT and CAN NOT COST anything!
|
If you want to look at it in a vacuum, all three OC abilities cost 50 energy, and have the following economic effect: scan: none mule:+270 minerals over the next 30s, -270 minerals when that mineral field is depleted (since the mineral boost comes from the max minerals in the field) supply drop: +8 supply, +100 minerals (instant build free supply depot, only usable with an un-SD'd supply depot available, assumes that this ability replaces a supply depot that would otherwise be built)
So really the opportunity cost of the scan is at most 100 minerals, and that is from missing a supply drop not a mule, and only if you could benefit from a supply drop. But why is the most effective economic decision the least used? Starcraft requires us to be shortsighted, and 270 minerals now is very well worth it, even if it technically gives us nothing in the long run.
Also, scans are invaluable in battle, so the real benefit of using them can be 1000's of minerals and gas saved on units and in enemy unit kills because of the in combat benefit.
|
Well there are two ways of looking at it. You are getting 270 bonus minerals if you drop a mule, or you are losing 270. Mules do cost money since it doesn't matter how many resources you have in your base, it's about how many resources you have at a certain period in the game, if you have extra resources you can just expand.
The only time mules can be considered free is when all bases on the map are taken and you have a fortified position and you simply don't need the money right away. The scan is very useful though, and 270 is a small price to pay if you get to see Void Rays, or some lategame tech switch etc. Not free by any means though.
|
I had two dollars in my wallet.
I could have, hypothetically, potentially, possibly bought a lottery ticket with those two dollars and won a million dollars.
Instead, I bought an ice cream.
Does that mean my decision to buy an ice cream cost me a million dollars? If yes, then scans cost minerals.
+ Show Spoiler +Obviously, either decision (ice cream or lottery ticket) gives me a potential benefit, based off of the same amount of resources. Choosing one over the other does not mean that you're supposed to deduct the reward of the one not picked. There are an infinite number of things you can do with money. Why don't we average them all? Why don't we average the benefits of a supply drop, a MULE, and the million other alternatives to *not ever getting an Orbital Command in the first place*? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL IRRELEVANT.
|
A slightly more straightforward example: if there are 1000 minerals on the map and you mine it out, you will have 1000 minerals. Whether you scan or use MULEs or do nothing with your CC, you will still mine 1000 minerals in the end. Therefore the scan does not cost any minerals; you cannot ever create minerals out of CC energy, only use faster what is already there.
|
I'm not sure if this was said before but sometimes information is worth more than the 270 minerals.
|
Actually, yes it does. In economic terms, the cost of something IS the opportunity cost (as opposed to accounting costs, which is what most of you all are talking about - actual $$).
This is how economics compares things like apples and oranges. Apples cost $5, oranges cost $3, then apples can also be looked at as costing 5/3 of an orange since that's what you are giving up each time you choose to purchase an apple. Your choice will depend on which one gives you a higher utility (more satisfaction).
In SC2, you have to decide, is the income from a MULE, or the knowledge the scan provides, going to prove more useful in winning. Instead of trying to get to the highest utility curve given our limited resources, we are trying to constantly improve our chances of winning the game given our limited resources (food, gas, minerals, information, etc.). Sometimes a scan will increase your chances more than the extra minerals, and vice versa.
|
lots of people that don't understand how the game works. If you're looking at it as 270 minerals, you're doing it wrong. What's generally important in most starcraft games is current resources + rate of resource collection. The amount of resources you gain through a single mule or scv is pretty irrelevant. In this case, the scan has an opportunity cost of the increased rate of mineral gathering you gain from a mule. So yes, there certainly is a downside, financially, for scanning, because presumably you would be muling instead. The idea is whether or not information is more valuble than tangible economy. Early game, muling is generally more important, but later on, the information is probably more important. I try as hard as possible to mule at every opportunity and not start using scans until midgame unless a zerg opponent is one-basing or I need an emergency scan for cloaked units.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina114 Posts
Day9 said that it's worth investing in caster units, because when all resources on the map are mined out, energy (mana) becomes the only 'resource' left (and it replenishes!).
Scan 'costs' you 270 minerals.
|
On December 01 2010 13:22 greendestiny wrote: Day9 said that it's worth investing in caster units, because when all resources on the map are mined out, energy (mana) becomes the only 'resource' left (and it replenishes!).
Scan 'costs' you 270 minerals.
Your two sentences are non sequiturs. All the MULEs in the world can't harvest any minerals once the map is mined out. You can't put a mineral-price on scans.
|
A scan costs you either: supply or potentially 270 minerals (if my mutas dont snipe your mule) A mule costs you either: extra supply or a scan An extra supply costs you either: scan or potentially 270 minerals (if my ling runby doesn't eat your mules)
happy?
|
Actually the whole "mining out the base" caveat doesn't hold.
I suppose it works if you have no mining bases at all, but you can bring down a mule at any mining base.
|
Some opportunity costs of 50 energy (ie choosing one of the options "costs" you one of the other two). The description under each is not all inclusive, but just a general idea:
Scan: Information that may be worthless and increases your chances of winning the game by 0%, or info that provides that piece of the puzzle that seals the game and propels you from a 1% of winning chance to 99% (like scanning those DTs sitting in your base). Most likely something in between.
MULE: Increases your income per minute by whatever it increases it by over the next 30 seconds, which I would imagine is a function of how saturated your mineral fields are (probably not always 270, or maybe it is?). Who knows, early in the game minerals are valuable so this may give you an additional 15% chance to win? Maybe more, maybe less.
Supply: Saves 100 minerals for a supply depot, what the SCV who would be building said supply depot is doing instead, and if supply blocked, the advantage of having those units now instead of later. Maybe getting that banshee out 20-30 seconds earlier (instead of having to wait for a supply depot) seals the win and tips the game from a 50/50 to a 90/10 for you (+40%).
Bottom line, quit looking at it in terms of just minerals. You can't put a mineral value on those options (well, you could, but it probably wouldn't be that easy or accurate). Instead, look at how it increases your chances of winning the game. Given the situation, players will pick whichever option they feel will increase their chances of winning more. Like in life, people choose what makes them happiest, not necessarily richest.
Caveat: I'm not addressing the people who make decisions for their entertainment. This is assuming that players are most interested in winning.
|
Sometimes, it's a LOT more important to use a scan (to scout, find cloaked stuff, etc.) than a MULE, so I'd actually say that the cost of a scan should be higher than a MULE.
|
when you scan, 270 minerals do not abruptly disappear from a mineral node. you obtain those 270 minerals, but not as quickly as if you called down a mule. you are losing a potential increase in income, but the income that it brings in is not lost. therefore scans are free.
it's like asking "when you build a hatchery, does it really cost 300 minerals, or does it cost an infinite amount of minerals due to all the lost potential mining time?"
|
So much ignorance...
Minerals now are worth more than minerals later. So much so, in fact, that you should make your worker count as high as possible. A mule mines 270 minerals in 90 seconds, that's approximately 3 minerals per second. A regular worker for all three races mines approximately 1 mineral per second. Using a mule means you temporarily have +3 workers. This obviously is a benefit. Otherwise why not just sit on 6 workers all game? The mineral patches will mine out eventually, so it's all a wash in the end right?
Absolutely not. Minerals you can spend are worth infinitely more than minerals in the patches. I'm puzzled why people think they can assert that a terran somehow "possesses" the entire mineral line even if they are not able to spend it, and that a mule does not actually let you spend 270 minerals you would not otherwise be able to spend.
|
a mule is worth 270 minerals now because minerals NOW is worth sooo much more than minerals later. You get your income faster than your opponent. And if you think the game is exactly the same if the game will have the same outcome without those mules economically, you really aren't considering anything resembling the whole picture.
Do you think ANY early terran pressure would be as effective if they didn't have those mules? Who cares if they would've had all those minerals anyway at a later time. Having them now means you can do something with it now. If all you do is macro and not attack/harass each other until the whole map is mined out, you're gold players.
|
This whole thread is a meaningless debate over semantics.
Use the word "cost" or don't. It doesn't fucking matter. The net result is very, VERY simple:
You can have ONE of these things: Supply, Money, or Info. You get one, you don't get the other two. Period.
Why does it matter whether you use the word "cost" or not? I think it's stupid and silly to argue that a scan doesn't "cost" a MULE. As a result of using a scan you don't have a MULE, and thus you will not get those minerals unless/until you completely mine out the map (never seen a game go that long, ever). That's the net result no matter what words you use to describe it.
FFS stop arguing over words. We all know what the choice is. That's all that matters...
|
On December 01 2010 12:44 bowsting wrote: Scan DOES NOT and CAN NOT COST anything!
It is impossible for a choice between two options to cost something as you are in fact being supplied with a choice between two potentially lucrative options. You are not being charged or penalized for your choice. If you choose to never calldown the Mule, you get economically behind and decrease your chances of winning the game because you give up the opportunity for 270 minerals if you scan. This is the penalty of a scan. A reasonable way to choose the scan is, to scan only if the information or vision is valued higher than nice 270 extra minerals. Of course this is also a game of chances since you often don't know the value of the information. So you need to try to guess the value of a scan information before you scan.
If something has no cost, then you would have no disadvantage if you just waste it. If you get the chance to get $270 over 9 days ($30 each day, 9 times) or borrow glasses which let you see through woman's clothes on the street for 12 hours (then the glasses will get black so you cannot use them any longer) and you choose to get the glasses, then you give up on $270 for this.
|
On December 01 2010 02:08 baconbits wrote: Calldown Supply is the only one that actually creates value from nothing. Scan and mule are both short-term benefits.
Mule lets you mine faster, increasing your income TEMPORARILY for 50 energy. If you call down a mule at the very end of the game, you may be cannot use the extra minerals even if you harvest them, so that Mule was worthless.
If you call down a Mule very early, you can use the extra income to build additional workers which has a huuuge pay off in longer games, even though the Mule effect is temporarily. The mule can get you real value.
On December 01 2010 02:08 baconbits wrote: Choosing a scan vs a mule cost INCOME RATE (minerals per second) not your actual minerals. You will still end up mining those 270 minerals, just slower. It doesn't magically reduce your mineral patch by 270. "Just slower" has its price. An analogy: Let's say you can choose to start with 100 instead of 50 minerals, but at 6:30 ingame time the game removes 50 minerals from your stash. Would it be wise to get the 50 minerals at the beginning? Yes. Having minerals now is always better than to get them later.
Since the base has so much ressources, the benefits of getting 270 minerals earlier is much greater than to be outmined earlier, too.
|
Is this intellectual dishonesty on purpose or by mistake?
I am going to say that a scan costs 270 minerals indeed. edit: I now rephrase it to "A scan costs about 270 minerals". edit again: Since you cannot buy the scan directly for 270 minerals, some hesitate to say that the scan costs 270 minerals. (You cannot pay the OC 270 minerals, you need to use 50 energy.) Of course this is true, but my main point is that the scan is not free.
This is my contention, no, wait... this is what I mean, oh, ok..... so now I mean this..... anyway, the point is I'm right!!!!
edits 1 - 12: none of these points count.
This is the penalty of a scan.
Seriously? Penalty was the word you reached for there, huh? The next time a Terran scans me I'll shed a tear. The next time a Zerg sacs an overlord I'll type "At least you weren't penalised! ZERG SCOUTING OP!"
You are obviously DETERMINED to believe that you are disadvantaged by using a scan. This will be met with approval from anyone equally DETERMINED and disapproval from those not. And by the end of what I am guessing will be a 25 page thread not one single person will have changed their mind.
You cannot pay the OC 270 minerals, you need to use 50 energy.) Of course this is true, but my main point is that the scan is not free.
WOW! So the title of this thread could be: Scans cost 50 energy. Well, thank goodness we've sorted that out.
|
On December 01 2010 18:57 SixtusTheFifth wrote: edits 1 - 12: none of these points count. ... because ...?
Are you ok if you replace "cost" with "opportunity cost"? (Wikipedia says Opportunity cost is the cost related to the next-best choice available to someone who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices)
On December 01 2010 18:57 SixtusTheFifth wrote: Seriously? Penalty was the word you reached for there, huh? The next time a Terran scans me I'll shed a tear. The next time a Zerg sacs an overlord I'll type "At least you weren't penalised! ZERG SCOUTING OP!" If you suicide an overlord for scouting, you are paying 100 minerals plus a larva. You also should build the replacement overlord before the scoutlord dies to avoid to get supply stuck, so you are paying the 100 and the larva minerals in advance, before you get possibly valuable scouting information.
On December 01 2010 18:57 SixtusTheFifth wrote:You are obviously DETERMINED to believe that you are disadvantaged by using a scan. Not at all. If the scan's value is guessed to be greater than about 270 minerals, it would effectively cost you minerals (or lets say, game-winning ressources) to call down the Mule compared to use the scan.
|
A scan costs 270 minerals, over 90 seconds. NOT 270 minerals. Theres a huge difference.
|
A mule is 270 minerals that you won't be able to get an earlier time in the game. If you and your opponent split the map and everything is mined out, you having used mules will not have earned you any minerals at all.
But if you had used supply dropdown instead of mule, that's 100 minerals you actually saved/earned (as long as the depot survives).
|
DarkPlasmaBall, you're mistaken about a lot of things.
On December 01 2010 12:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I had two dollars in my wallet.
I could have, hypothetically, potentially, possibly bought a lottery ticket with those two dollars and won a million dollars.
Instead, I bought an ice cream.
Does that mean my decision to buy an ice cream cost me a million dollars?
No, your decision to buy an ice cream cost you $1 000 000 times by the probability of winning. So you're probably better off buying the ice cream.
Obviously, either decision (ice cream or lottery ticket) gives me a potential benefit, based off of the same amount of resources. Choosing one over the other does not mean that you're supposed to deduct the reward of the one not picked.
It's called opportunity cost. You might want to look it up.
There are an infinite number of things you can do with money. Why don't we average them all? Why don't we average the benefits of a supply drop, a MULE, and the million other alternatives to *not ever getting an Orbital Command in the first place*? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL IRRELEVANT.
They're not irrelevant. If they were, then you should always scan as there is no downside without an opportunity cost. But you know intuitively that sometimes you shouldn't scan, and save the energy for something else, don't you?
|
On December 01 2010 18:16 [F_]aths wrote: If something has no cost, then you would have no disadvantage if you just waste it. If you get the chance to get $270 over 9 days ($30 each day, 9 times) or borrow glasses which let you see through woman's clothes on the street for 12 hours (then the glasses will get black so you cannot use them any longer) and you choose to get the glasses, then you give up on $270 for this.
It's more like, you have a choice,
- $270 now - The Stock Market activity for the next hour and $270 tommarow.
Assuming you're going to be able to expand whenever you want is a very bad assumption. Only if your opponents are terrible.
|
On December 01 2010 23:36 GoldenH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 18:16 [F_]aths wrote: If something has no cost, then you would have no disadvantage if you just waste it. If you get the chance to get $270 over 9 days ($30 each day, 9 times) or borrow glasses which let you see through woman's clothes on the street for 12 hours (then the glasses will get black so you cannot use them any longer) and you choose to get the glasses, then you give up on $270 for this. It's more like, you have a choice, - $270 now - The Stock Market activity for the next hour and $270 tommarow. Assuming you're going to be able to expand whenever you want is a very bad assumption. Only if your opponents are terrible.
You have to compare the same time periods. With your analogy it's:
- $270 now and $270 tomorrow; or - the Stock Market activity for the next hour and $270 tomorrow.
Like [F_]aths has said, and like I said in my previous post, if there is no cost then there is no reason not to scan. Clearly the fact that you think twice before scanning means there is a cost. I still don't know how anybody is seriously disputing that there is a mineral opportunity cost to scanning.
The real question is how much the cost is. If we continue on from your example. The real questions are: - How much more is $270 now worth than $270 tomorrow? - How much is seeing the Stock Market activity for the next hour worth?
|
To be perfectly honest, I lost a little respect for all of Terran-kind when I saw this post. If it isn't blatantly obvious that a scan costs 270 minerals over time then please stay in or go back to school.
|
On December 02 2010 00:01 Obsolescence wrote: To be perfectly honest, I lost a little respect for all of Terran-kind when I saw this post. If it isn't blatantly obvious that a scan costs 270 minerals over time then please stay in or go back to school.
I don't think difficulty comprehending these ideas is limited to Terrans. This entire thread is littered with ignorant trolls who keep insisting scan is somehow "free."
It's a pretty sad example of a strategy forum thread, really.
|
If a scan costs 270 minerals then a planetary fortress actually doesn't cost 150/150, but instead:
180 x (ingame minutes the fortress is up + 15secs) in minerals ("loss" from not having those additional mules) and 150 gas
|
On December 02 2010 00:00 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2010 23:36 GoldenH wrote:On December 01 2010 18:16 [F_]aths wrote: If something has no cost, then you would have no disadvantage if you just waste it. If you get the chance to get $270 over 9 days ($30 each day, 9 times) or borrow glasses which let you see through woman's clothes on the street for 12 hours (then the glasses will get black so you cannot use them any longer) and you choose to get the glasses, then you give up on $270 for this. It's more like, you have a choice, - $270 now - The Stock Market activity for the next hour and $270 tommarow. Assuming you're going to be able to expand whenever you want is a very bad assumption. Only if your opponents are terrible. You have to compare the same time periods. With your analogy it's: - $270 now and $270 tomorrow; or - the Stock Market activity for the next hour and $270 tomorrow. Like [F_]aths has said, and like I said in my previous post, if there is no cost then there is no reason not to scan. Clearly the fact that you think twice before scanning means there is a cost. I still don't know how anybody is seriously disputing that there is a mineral opportunity cost to scanning. The real question is how much the cost is. If we continue on from your example. The real questions are: - How much more is $270 now worth than $270 tomorrow? - How much is seeing the Stock Market activity for the next hour worth?
No, you don't get $270 tomorrow, you only get it once. The time periods are considered, that's why you only get an hour of scan. As long as you get some value out of the scan, it's worth it. Now obviously, if you could get vision of the area where you want to scan for COMPLETELY FREE, you should do it, but sorry, no, there is stuff that it's REALLY valuable to know, even if it's just knowing what ratios of units you should be building.
|
A mule does not cost 270 minerals. It costs 50 mana/energy.
Saying a mule costs 270 minerals is like saying a spawning pool costs an infinite amount of minerals because the drone that was lost could have been mining the rest of the game but wasn't because it died.
The fact of the matter is, it costs the energy. That's it. It's not -270 minerals for scanning, it's +0. If you found a rare artificact on the ground that you could sell for $600, but you instead sell it for $400, you did not lose $200, you gained $400. That's that.
|
On December 02 2010 00:16 Jeffbelittle wrote: Saying a mule costs 270 minerals is like saying a spawning pool costs an infinite amount of minerals
No. It's not like saying that, and frankly I can't be the only one whose getting sick of reading this nonsense.
Read the thread please, don't just post nonsensical garbage that's been refuted a million times already.
|
I think people shouldn't be so dismissive of assertions of a zegr buildings cost. Saying that you can simply rebuild the drone is also a simplification because you may not have the opportunity to remake the drone (because of unexpected pressure for instance). So the cost of the building may be slightly higher, but certainly not infinite.
edit: a good example of this is throwing down a spine as aresponse to pressure. You lose the drone for a much longer period of time because you will be making units to deal with the pressure.
|
A scan gives up the ability to get 270 minerals over 90 seconds.
|
Why are people such idiots?
If you don't send your workers to your minerals at the start of the game it costs you minerals. You can nitpick that it just "delays" getting those minerals, but that's just that, nitpicking. We all know that you sacrifice 270 minerals over the next 90 seconds by scanning and that you'd rather had gotten those muled minerals. Just like we know that if we don't send our harvesters to the patches it's costing us minerals every second. Don't just argue for the sake of arguing.
|
An OC take 150 minerals to make which is equivalent to creating three SCV's. In return, it provides you a mule continuously which is pegged at around 4-4.5 SCV's mining.
Let us consider a full 200 energy cycle for a bit. 4 mules average 4-4.5 SCV's throughout the cycle 3 mules + 1 scan ~ 3-3.4 SCV's / cycle 2 mules + 2 scans ~ 2-2.25 SCV's /cycle 1 mules + 3 scans ~ 1-1.1 SCV's /cycle
In the meantime, a Zerg/Protoss can make 3 drones/probes which can continuously act as 3 workers throughout. So, if we ignore others mechanics affecting economy, 3 mules + 1 scan /cycle economy will be nearly equivalent to protoss/zerg economy. The benefit on mule will be not being affected by saturation while disadvantage being lesser HP so easier to take off larger equivalent of workers by killing one mule. Also, equivalent regular workers can get gas also which equivalent SCV's from mules cannot.
Now, if macro mechanics for all three races were similar, we could possibly say that using a 3 mules + 1 scan per cycle would be break even with other races but unfortunately the zerg macro of making multiple drones simultaneously and losing workers while making buildings, terran workers spending time making buildings and protoss chrono-boosting probes and buildings being constructed not needing worker attention make things complicated. It is hard to put a number of exact worker equivalent on these mechanics as they are affected by the game play parameters.
However, I would still argue that it is better equate the opportunity cost of a mule in terms of equivalent workers rather than minerals directly i.e. a scan costs around 4/4.5 SCVs for 90sec or on average ~1 SCV over a 4 min duration.
|
On December 02 2010 00:07 fkt wrote: If a scan costs 270 minerals then a planetary fortress actually doesn't cost 150/150, but instead:
180 x (ingame minutes the fortress is up + 15secs) in minerals ("loss" from not having those additional mules) and 150 gas
Yes, but you'd need to assign a number to the gain you get from having an expansion that's near impossible to take down.
EDIT: For anyone still wondering if a scan costs 270 minerals, yes it does. Without a mule, you're mining, expanding, and producing that much slower.
|
No it doesnt. Obviously not.
|
I would actually argue that Scan VS. Mule is more of advantage A VS. B rather then minerals.
yes, using a scan means your not using a Mule which mines ~270 minerals so people would say that because Scan = Mule, Mule = 270 minerals then Scan = 270 minerals, however, the amount of minerals you have to mine from a base does not and will not change,
if you start a base with 10k minerals you will mine 10k minerals
if you add in mules you will still mine 10k minerals, only faster
Both scan and mules cost 50 energy and the opportunity cost of the other and nothing more.
Mules Chrono boost your mineral income.
Scans reveal cloaked/burrowed units and provide vital scouting information.
|
I would actually argue that Scan VS. Mule is more of advantage A VS. B rather then minerals.
yes, using a scan means your not using a Mule which mines ~270 minerals so people would say that because Scan = Mule, Mule = 270 minerals then Scan = 270 minerals, however, the amount of minerals you have to mine from a base does not and will not change,
if you start a base with 10k minerals you will mine 10k minerals
if you add in mules you will still mine 10k minerals, only faster
Both scan and mules cost 50 energy and the opportunity cost of the other and nothing more.
Mules Chrono boost your mineral income.
Scans reveal cloaked/burrowed units and provide vital scouting information.
|
saying you lose 250 minerals is like saying you missed larva or something, you still get a scan. so you're not gaining 250 minerals, instead you opt to see what they opponent is doing.
|
If you count the "loss" of the potential mule if you make a scan, shouldn't you try to quantify what you gain with the scan as well?
|
|
I think this could be mirrored onto toss chronoboosting probe production.
Would you say you are "losing minerals" by not chronoing your nexus? That's time a probe could have been gathering resources rather than being built, isn't it?
Or zerg. Are you "losing" minerals by creating anything else with your larva instead of drones?
|
Obviously you have an opportunity cost issue, with deciding whether to scan, mule, or supply drop.
In terms of the 270 minerals, if you were in finance, you would apply an appropriate discount rate for your calculation to find out how much that 270 minerals from the mule is worth now. Since sc2 markets are not efficient and there is no way we'd get a discount rate, we can't calculate this. But we can however say that a mule is worth less than 270 minerals. Probably somewhere > 150, but definitely < 270.
|
On December 02 2010 04:35 Phoobie wrote: I would actually argue that Scan VS. Mule is more of advantage A VS. B rather then minerals.
yes, using a scan means your not using a Mule which mines ~270 minerals so people would say that because Scan = Mule, Mule = 270 minerals then Scan = 270 minerals, however, the amount of minerals you have to mine from a base does not and will not change,
if you start a base with 10k minerals you will mine 10k minerals
if you add in mules you will still mine 10k minerals, only faster
Both scan and mules cost 50 energy and the opportunity cost of the other and nothing more.
Mules Chrono boost your mineral income.
Scans reveal cloaked/burrowed units and provide vital scouting information.
Yes, but it does not matter cause you pretty much never mine out whole map.
So as long as there are minerals on the map, scan costs 270 minerals.
|
I love the financial approach. But I think it's more complex than that and common sense is just in order. Just always mule when you don't need scan.
|
Liquipedia still showed the common misconception that scans cost 50 energy! Updated it for you all. You're welcome.
|
On December 02 2010 05:17 AllNight wrote: I love the financial approach. But I think it's more complex than that and common sense is just in order. Just always mule when you don't need scan.
You need more than common sense in order to use MULEs/Scans effectively at the highest echelons of play.
- - - - - - - - - - -
A MULE has a fixed cost of 50 energy and 270 minerals over 90 seconds. It's important to note that it's never "270 minerals" and is always "270 minerals over 90 seconds", because a MULE does not create more minerals than what are already on the map. A MULE is an injection of income, not an injection of resources. The real value of a MULE is it allows you to do more things sooner; what it does not do is give you the ability to do things you never would have normally been able to do in game (IE creating minerals from thin air).
|
I'm pretty sure a Scan actually costs 8 supply.
|
When used correctly, the scan really doesn't cost 270 minerals at all. It's only a waste when you use it and have gained no information, or use it at an inappropriate time (the first 50 energy of the OC). When used successfully, the scan is often able to reveal game changing information, which is much more valuable than 270 minerals. Most of the time when your econ has stabilized, I'd say scan is more useful than Mule. It's better to constantly know the location of your opponents army than use the mule to gain more minerals that you don't immediately need. But when you're down on minerals, and you really need that extra boost, using a scan instead of a mule would definitely be the equivalent of losing 270 minerals.
|
i think this is pointless.
scan = 270m/90s = 8 supply
50 energy = 270m/50s = 8 supply = scan it all depends on the situation on what you need. if you're supply blocked and have 1000 minerals, you're not gonna use mule, you'll drop a supply. if you have dt in your base, you're not gonna drop a mule, you'll scan. if you mess up, say mule then a dt comes into your base and unprepared, you're done.
in the end, its just 50 energy and what you do with it are all equally valid. you're not sacrificing the others for one, you're picking one advantage to have(at particular situations). same with chrono boost, you're not "delaying" wg for probes or the other way around, you're gaining an advantage in one area.
|
On November 30 2010 21:21 eluv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 20:53 Nycaloth wrote: maybe T players rely on the mule too much as an income source and therefore get less workers then the other races and need the mule to stay even and that is where the 'cost' mentality stems from. It's not really a choice - Terrans can't actually produce workers as fast as either of the other races on equal bases. Terrans can build more CCs than they have bases, reasonably, because they can float them into position later. Protoss can't. (Of course, this is expensive, and it will take a while for the extra workers/OCs to pay for it... and if Terran expands exactly like Protoss and does not use OCs, they'll be in a shitty position.)
Zerg will always have the fastest potential rate of workers since each Hatch + Queen can produce ~twice as fast as a Nexus that's dedicated to Chronoboosting itself. Hence the general understanding that Zergs need to be pressured so they won't just mass drones (or drone/queen).
|
I see horrible logic. And dead people.
First of all, how you use the scan has no bearing on what it costs. The cost is irrelevant to how it works. You exchange something for a mule, whether or not you gain anything from the something has no relation to your investment. Whether the drop supply or scan helps you is how you measure how good was the investment and if it was worth it, not how big the investment was.
Now, on to the cost. Lets make some assumptions: * The time value of money holds. This is basic finance theory, meaning it is better to get an x amount of money now than get them some time in the future. This means you cannot equate a 90s stream of income to the exact notional value of the total income. The value of your investment will always be lower than the minerals you receive in the future, so the cost will never be 270.
I have actually thought about the concept in SC2 before, and it would actually be interesting to get a rough idea of how much less minerals are worth one minute from now. Imagine you are given on option to spend 100 minerals 5 minutes into the game. How many minerals would you want back at the 6th minute? The more you want in exchange, the less the scan will actually cost.
* Since the mule is such an awesome thing, your opponent will want to kill it as fast as possible, valuing killing it over other workers. This means you cannot expect to always get the full amount of minerals. So you have to factor in the 270 minerals by some sort of probability that it will stay alive for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, the whole 90 seconds, etc. Lets say on average, the mule gets killed 45 seconds into mining one out of every four times you cast it. This means that a scan, on average, will net you 236 minerals.
Disclaimer: all views derived from traditional finance theory. I think it describes what happens in SC2 pretty well.
I think a reasonable approximation might be that a scan instantly costs around 200 minerals or a bit less, on average. When there is a banshee harass going on and the mule would be instantly killed anyway, it might cost 0 minerals to scan, or, alternatively, when you don't care if you get any minerals a minute from now (for instance, because you're going to lose/win even if you get the mule), it might also cost 0 minerals to scan.
Obviously the 200 or whatever minerals are worth way more early game than late game when they represent a smaller percentage of your income/resources, so the investment decision is more for mules early game and less late game.
|
Think of it in terms of opportunity cost: If you feel that you know what is going on and there is no real threat of cloaked units scan is better. If you do not have sufficient knowledge of the opponents strategy or you're facing cloaked units scan is a better choice.
I think the energy on the OC is very similar to the larva mechanic, you have to make a conscious choice when deciding whether MULEing (droning) or scanning (making troops) is more beneficial.
|
A scan doesn't cost 270 minerals. In a game that goes to where the entire map is mined out, you are not down 270 minerals. Either way, you will eventually get that 270 minerals, you only got the minerals faster. However, it does cost you 100 minerals if you do not use the supply drop. Simple logic guys.
|
11 pages of a dumb semantics debate?
i've seen more sense on the battlenet forum.
|
well, if a scan is 270 minerals, Every zerg buildings cost infinite minerals? Those drones could of stayed mining for ever =/
|
On December 02 2010 08:58 facefart wrote: well, if a scan is 270 minerals, Every zerg buildings cost infinite minerals? Those drones could of stayed mining for ever =/
Get ready to be flamed by people that think that you could just rebuild that drone and not have n+1 drones.
|
It is all semantics and it depends on the in-game context. As someone pointed out 50 energy=1scan=270min/Xsec=8supply. Saying that scan costs 270 minerals is like trying to determine cost of the forcefield in hallucinations. Of course you can do it, but does it make sense or is useful terminology ? Sometimes it can, but as a blanket stytement it is useless and baseless.
|
I have actually thought about the concept in SC2 before, and it would actually be interesting to get a rough idea of how much less minerals are worth one minute from now. Imagine you are given on option to spend 100 minerals 5 minutes into the game. How many minerals would you want back at the 6th minute? The more you want in exchange, the less the scan will actually cost.
Frankly, this weighing this is a good portion of the strategy in Starcraft. Like...the entire game. Seriously.
---------
This is a pretty pointless thread that really just exists for people to continue to stream really bad comments nobody else cares about. So let me piss my 2c into the pot.
Forget about minerals in total. You have a rate per minute. A mule will add 180m/minute.
MR = Mule Rate (Per Minute) = 180m ET = Minutes to get 50 Energy / 1.5 (we divide by 1.5 because a mule lasts 1.5 minutes)
The Mule Income Bonus then is: MIB = MR / ET
I'm not sure what the real value of ET is. Let's say its 90 seconds exactly, that means that mules provide terran with a constant income stream of 180m/min.
I don't know the exact income rate a fully saturated base has - but I think its around 800m/minute (100 m per patch per minute), meaning that mules provide an income bonus of 22.5%/ET -- if it takes 90 seconds to get 50 energy (ET = 1) - then terran recieves 22.5% more income than any other race. Thats tremendous. Seriously - even if ET is 1.5 its still a 15% bonus to income (in bursts - which gives you that "money now > money later" bonus as well). Pretty insane, and if neither base is saturated the percentage increase in income is greater. Amazing.
Now ... the word Cost. If scanning "costs" you money or not depends on how you mentally categorize the Mule Income Bonus. The word cost is somewhat subjective here.
If you think of MIB as something that you are always entitled to when playing terran, then it yes, there is a 'cost' in income to use a scan.
If instead you think of MIB as a free bonus - then it doesn't 'cost' you anything but energy to opt for the scan.
So you can think of it as costing you something or not. Just depends on how you like to categorize it - as a free bonus (no cost in income), or as a given (yes cost in income).
For what its worth, because MIB is constant (assuming there is a CC next to a mineral patch) I personally think that you should count it as a cost. Further, I think that people who consider it an 'opportunity cost' are somewhat technically correct, but because MIB is constant I think it is more accurate to be considered a part of base income.
And in conclusion....holy shit, I had no idea mules were so imba - even if ET is 1.5 - 120 m/minute is 15% extra income which is insane. Even if ET hovers around 2 - thats around 90m/minute extra. In a 10 minute game thats 900 minerals. Thats insane, and I think its probably closer to ~1,200 mineral advantage in a 10 minute game -- amazing. I need to figure out how to get a hell of a lot more value out of chronoboost... 900 minerals is 6 extra gateways -- I really doubt that I'm getting 6 extra gateways worth of value out of chronoboost.
Also -- please -- let this thread die, or if people continue pissing random opinions just keep linking to this post in response. If you took the time to actually understand the above it'll actually teach people something about starcraft (as well as how to like...think... in real life ;D)
EDIT: I can't get over how valuable mules are...does anyone know how long it takes to get 50 energy?? I looked over the logic above a few times and it looks right...which ... i sorta can't believe - did blizzard not do the math here?
EDIT #2: I think that this might very well be the real reason that terrans early game is completely out of control. Someone should look over this (someone smart) and see if I messed something up. I'm really shocked.
|
You can argue that MULES cost ~270 minerals and I wouldn't complain.
However, defining scans as a cost is a little more murky.
Scans COST 50 energy. They don't cost 270 minerals. You can compare that 50 energy is worth 270 minerals, which is why people make the analogy that scans also cost 270 minerals.
How do you define energy cost? Well, there are three outputs for OC energy, and I will examine all three of them with respect to min/energy.
MULES are perhaps the simplest to define. Optimally on a blue mineral patch, they will harvest 270 minerals within 90 game seconds. Safe to say that the 50 energy used will return 270 minerals. However, you must also account for little discrepancies such as the common debate "money now is worth more than money later" (which I agree with wholeheartedly) and the fact that the amount of minerals in a patch will deplete more quickly. All in all though, it's safe to say for the MULE ability, 50 energy ~= 270 minerals.
Supply drops get a little more ambiguous. Simply put, they can be worth 100 minerals for the cost of another supply depot. Definitely not worth it compared to a mule, right? Which is why nobody uses them. However, you must also take in the fact that it delivers 100 minerals INSTANTLY in the form of supply. If you were supply blocked and tried to build another supply depot in time for your units to come up, but he's already pushing up the ramp, wouldn't it be better to instantly redeem that 50 energy for 8 supply? Also other little discrepancies such as building space.
EDIT: People get a little confused with my supply drop analysis. Let's say you have 100 minerals and 50 energy. You need to create a supply depot and a bunker. You can either wait for the mule + scvs to mine that amount (which will probably take 12ish seconds, give or take), or you can supply drop and create a bunker simultaneously. It's the idea of instantaneous redemption of mineral/energy rather than improved income.
Now we come to the bulk of the discussion: The cost of scans. Like I stated before, the basis that scans cost 270 minerals isn't accurate, but rather we should look at in terms of OC energy.
The thing about scans is that their worth is very varied. They give absolutely no real material gain that can be recorded by the player. They have one purpose, they convert that 50 energy into information. Whether it be scanning to destroy banemines, scouting opponent tech or destroying cloaked banshees in your base, assigning a mineral 'cost' to scans is inaccurate in my opinion. In this regard, I disagree with OP.
However, scan is nowhere close to being free. We have already seen that 50 energy can be easily redeemed for 270 minerals, which is why you should make your ENERGY count.
If you so desire a formula for the mineral worth of a scan, then try using this pseudo formula. Worth of Scan = x + y + z Where x is equal to the mineral cost of units that have been saved by your scan (ie. moving up with your force, scanning ahead to seeing a massive amount of siege tanks covering your approach and falling back), where y is equal to the mineral cost of enemy units that have been killed by your scan (ie. cloaked banshees or dark templars), and where z is equal to the mineral cost of information that has been gained from that scan. (LOLWUT?)
Can you see why giving scans a material worth can be so hard to accomplish?
tldr; Scans don't cost 270 minerals, they cost 50 energy. 50 energy can be worth 270 minerals (in the case of MULEs), 100 minerals (Supply drop), or an undefined amount of minerals (Scans).
|
ok but, not using the scan and letting your base die to dts is even dumber so I just dont get all this mule talk.
|
On December 02 2010 10:45 TheGiftedApe wrote: ok but, not using the scan and letting your base die to dts is even dumber so I just dont get all this mule talk.
Hence why in my formula, Worth = x + y + z, X would be a very larger number (the total mineral sum of your base structures) and Y would be the cost of the DTs, which obviously shows that the scan is worth much more than the mule at that point in the game
|
is MULE really free or does it cost anywhere from
-extra supply -valuable, valuable, valuable scouting information -valuable, valuable, valuable detection from DTs
are SCVs merely 50 minerals or do they cost 2 marines, one for the cost and one for the supply?
i also don't like how you phrased it. the words "free" and "cost" implies dangerous assumptions. did you HAVE to get that mule, and because you didn't, it "cost" you 270? as a protoss, if i chrono anything but a nexus, am i costing myself mining time? what if chronoing something else is more valuable than mining time or minerals? terran has the advantage of flexibility, so saying scan COSTS 270 is like saying you HAVE to get the mule and NEVER anything else. what if a scan is worth more at the moment?
|
if a scan is worth 270 minerals then any terran building besides the cc costs infinite minerals cuz the cc can be turned into an OC which can drop infinite mules
also, you say the drone can be remade? yeah well you can sit there and wait for your energy to hit 50 again too
|
On December 02 2010 07:04 jinorazi wrote: i think this is pointless.
scan = 270m/90s = 8 supply
This is correct
When your orbital has 50 energy you have 3 choices, Scan, Mule, Supply. When you choose one you LOSE/Sacrifice/whatever you want to call it, the other two options instantly until you get another 50 energy. That is opportunity cost.
Its basic econ 101.
I think people are getting confused because they think when you can scan you have 270 minerals subtracted from your current mineral count which of course is wrong, but over 90 seconds you have 270 less minerals than you would of had if you had muled, so in that sense you "lost" 270 minerals in those 90 seconds.
Also, no one is saying you should mule with every single 50 energy, early in the game you should mule, almost always with the first 100 energy but as the game goes on, the relative value of 270 minerals decreases and the value of information (scans) increases.
Its also understood that you aren't getting 270 minerals out of thin air and that each expo has a limit which will be mined out but in what games is the entire map mined out? Basically none, so that is 270 minerals you wouldn't of otherwise had since once you mine out one expo you go to the next one, the Mule will always have 270 more minerals in a given time period over not muling (until you mine out the entire map which almost never happens)
And as for zerg drones costing infinite minerals...well first off there aren't infinite minerals on the map, you are trading that mining time/minerals would of been accumulated *faster* for a building that has a value to you. In effect, slowing your economy to produce a building, kind of like a scv losing mining time while building, and the time it takes for a probe to reach the position of the building and warp it in and back to the mineral line. Obviously in this regard, zerg has the highest cost to produce a building than any of the other races, this is partially balanced out by the fact that they have to make the fewest buildings of all the races as they don't need unit producing structures since the units spawn from larva.
|
Frankly, this weighing this is a good portion of the strategy in Starcraft. Like...the entire game. Seriously.
Hi, Captain Obvious? I was talking about a numerical estimate, how many minerals would 1 mineral 1 minute later be worth now. 0,9? 0,8? 0,7? Etc. This would also help estimate how much not using a mule "costs", among other things.
Anyway, since everyone just spouts out whatever they "think is right" without thinking about previous arguments, this thread has indeed turned into a dead end.
|
This point may have already been made, but i'm too lazy to read 11 pages of responses to find out. I don't think a mule 'costs' 270 minerals. If you call down the mule, your minerals are going to be mined out faster. The mule just gives you the minerals at a faster rate, it doesn't magically create extra minerals.
|
My higher level math friends have pointed out to me that it depends on whether or not we considering "cost" as "opportunity cost", in that: are we considering it a "loss" of minerals if we choose to miss out on the opportunity of acquiring them by scanning.
When you scan, its physical cost is 50 energy. However: the opportunity potential of the 50 energy is 8 supply, 270 minerals over 90 seconds, or a scan. Now considering it at face value you're not losing 270 minerals over 90 seconds by scanning nor 8 supply. You simply just aren't gaining it. However: if we are talking about the opportunity cost, then yes: it exists. However, it's ridiclious to find because both a scan and 8 supply instantly being created aren't quantifiable values to measure the true loss between them and 270 minerals over 90 seconds.
I think it's safe to say; however, that it's not a detriment for a Terran to use a scan in the mid to late game rather than a mule. My reasoning for such is this: the information gained by scanning a person's base will more than likely allow you to build cost effective units to counter your opponent and thus make up, and even gain, resources over your opponent over the matter.
|
You shouldn't really factor in opportunity cost when you talk about Mules vs. Scan. If you say scans cost 270 minerals, then Zerg buildings must cost Infinite minerals because that Drone could have mined a lot of minerals.
|
I agree scan cost minerals. I do not agree the number bein 270 tho. Yes the mule can get you 270 minerals but you can have this with scvs... If you have full satturation or over satturated will mule be so effective ? If you send few scvs on attack how much will the mule help you and how much the scan ?
|
I have a degree in finance and stream rolled the CFA Level I exam, so I think my opinion on this is probably worth something. It's pretty situational, but in most cases I would consider the cost of a scan to be about 270 minerals.
If you only have 1 Orbital and you've mined out all but one patch which has 270 minerals, then you can't really say that. In most "normal" situations, I would look at it as "if I scan right now, I'll have about 270 less minerals in 90 seconds than I would otherwise". No more, no less. I really don't want to think about this too much, but if you have full saturation then it's probably less since you'll have scvs just sitting around. I think a lot of people are thinking about it like it's 270 instant minerals, which it's not, but it's still 270 minerals.
Just know that scans are not free and you'll be fine.
|
A scan is only worth 270 future minerals, after all it will take some time to mine them. It's not like a terran clicks Mule and gets 270 at an instant. Gaining them over time of course is worse, it's always better to have them at an instant.
So it rather takes some planning... can I afford to have those 270 minerals less half a minute into the future? Or will that be a crucial point of time to build something? Might it possibly be better to invest those 270 to start building an expansion "for only 130 minerals" so to say, instead of scanning now?
Or, would it better to build three turrets (almost for free even though it of course takes mining time) to prevent against air or cloak attacks, instead of scanning for the enemies tech?
|
On December 02 2010 21:57 dabom88 wrote: You shouldn't really factor in opportunity cost when you talk about Mules vs. Scan. If you say scans cost 270 minerals, then Zerg buildings must cost Infinite minerals because that Drone could have mined a lot of minerals.
The Zerg situation is a lot more complicated for so many reasons. First of all, games don't last forever and there are only so many mineral patches, so you can't say they cost "infinite minerals". There is a high cost associated with them though... and there should be. If you build a random spore crawler for no reason, that drone could have mined 40 minerals every minute for the rest of the game (let's assume you keep <17 drones at every base on minerals). That seems like a huge amount, you might even be thinking "that can't be true, the other races don't have that!". It's balanced because if zerg didn't lose drones when they built something, they would have twice as many workers as the other races and they'd never lose....
Drones cost 50 + cost of the building + (40 minerals/minute they could have mined optimally) + (20 minerals/minute if there were more than 16 drones on minerals at that base)
Don't take that equation above to be exact, I'm just pulling it off the top of my head. Yeah your roach warren might "cost" you 500 minerals by the time the game ends, but what's the cost of never building a roach warren so you can get an extra 40 minerals a minute for the rest of the game? Probably the game.
|
On December 02 2010 21:57 dabom88 wrote: You shouldn't really factor in opportunity cost when you talk about Mules vs. Scan. If you say scans cost 270 minerals, then Zerg buildings must cost Infinite minerals because that Drone could have mined a lot of minerals.
This has been covered multiple times, can people please stop posting the same thing over and over.
On December 03 2010 00:36 AcOrP wrote: I agree scan cost minerals. I do not agree the number bein 270 tho. Yes the mule can get you 270 minerals but you can have this with scvs... If you have full satturation or over satturated will mule be so effective ? If you send few scvs on attack how much will the mule help you and how much the scan ?
A mule mines 270 minerals over 90 seconds regardless of saturation, this has also been covered.
These are both answered in the very first post...
|
On December 02 2010 21:57 dabom88 wrote: You shouldn't really factor in opportunity cost when you talk about Mules vs. Scan. If you say scans cost 270 minerals, then Zerg buildings must cost Infinite minerals because that Drone could have mined a lot of minerals.
Wrong. A mule will bring a fix amount of 270 minerals given that it survives within a certain time limit (20seconds it is I think). A drone gives a variable amount of minerals, depending on game length and how long the drone will survive and of course mines way slower.
However, the Mule effect diminishes once it makes other workers beeing unemployed, for example if all your mine patches are gone - than this will subsequently eat up the benefit which the mules once gave; However, having minerals earlier is better than having them later in the long run - if you fight with 5 marines vs 7 marines and afterwards build five more marines, you will lose many more minerals than if you fight 10 marines vs 7 marines (with five additional marines due to a mule).
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
The more important question is what are the 270 minerals over 90s worth, which is obviously not a constant value.
Let's say that the probability of your winning at a point in time is p. Then, the value v of some resource r is v = dp / dr or something like that :-)
|
On December 02 2010 21:57 dabom88 wrote: You shouldn't really factor in opportunity cost when you talk about Mules vs. Scan. If you say scans cost 270 minerals, then Zerg buildings must cost Infinite minerals because that Drone could have mined a lot of minerals.
Stop with this stupid, ill thought-out argument. You rebuild the drone. At most, it costs you what that Drone would have mined in the amount of time it takes you to saturate that mineral field. Also, regardless of what it costs in minerals, without buildings you cannot make any units to stay alive or do anything at all, so it's obviously worth it.
|
On December 02 2010 21:24 Jeffbelittle wrote: My higher level math friends have pointed out to me that it depends on whether or not we considering "cost" as "opportunity cost", in that: are we considering it a "loss" of minerals if we choose to miss out on the opportunity of acquiring them by scanning.
When you scan, its physical cost is 50 energy. However: the opportunity potential of the 50 energy is 8 supply, 270 minerals over 90 seconds, or a scan. Now considering it at face value you're not losing 270 minerals over 90 seconds by scanning nor 8 supply. You simply just aren't gaining it. However: if we are talking about the opportunity cost, then yes: it exists. However, it's ridiclious to find because both a scan and 8 supply instantly being created aren't quantifiable values to measure the true loss between them and 270 minerals over 90 seconds.
I think it's safe to say; however, that it's not a detriment for a Terran to use a scan in the mid to late game rather than a mule. My reasoning for such is this: the information gained by scanning a person's base will more than likely allow you to build cost effective units to counter your opponent and thus make up, and even gain, resources over your opponent over the matter.
i believe this is the best explanation and should /thread with that.
all three options are equally valid, it all boils down to what you need at that particular time. worrying about 270 potential minerals then not scanning a critical unit like banshee can cost you the game. worrying about banshee and saving your energy for scan can hinder your economic advantage through mules.
all are equally valid, you're not "losing" anything by picking one over the other. get what you need; thats the advantage you gain. using the wrong thing at the wrong time can cost you the game or put you at disadvantage. ever do a thor timing push then forget to build a supply? i'd drop a supply pod immediately than to build a supply depo/scan/mule. - or you can say "fck it, i'll delay it and do a stronger push" proceed to build a depo and drop a mule.
simply put, scan does not cost "270 minerals" it costs 50 energy that is interchangeable with 8 supply, scan, mule.
|
If you sort of quantify information from scanning as minerals, it's better to use OC energy on mules early on because the information you get from your first 50 or 100 energy isn't likely going to be worth more than the 270 potential minerals, but the 'value' of information does increase as the game progresses, and how much you value the information you'd get (enemy tech, enemy unit comp, enemy expos, etc.)
|
LOL this is simple.
If a SCAN costs 270 minerals... then the first SCV you build costs 5 x number of return trips it makes to your CC.
That makes for a VERY valuable scv lol.
|
OH.
LOL scan might actually be much less expensive too. If it saves you from losing say 500 minerals worth of units and buildings, then a scan MAKES you 500 - 270 = 230 minerals.
Opportunity cost is the smartest and only way to think of starcraft.
Remember though. Money today = worth more than money tomorrow.. err.. minerals tomorrow. =)
|
Supply drop is NOT equal to 100 minerals. That builder could have been mining during the 30s build time, believe it is 60 per minute?... Supply drop = 130 minerals!!
|
The other thing to consider here is race equivalents. Protoss and Zerg can both make workers more quickly than Terran because of chrono boost and queens.
The question is, does getting a scout force you to give up a quick amount of minerals, or equivalent, and conversely can the other races get easy money by not scouting, using their macro mechanics?
So, if you use a chrono boost on your observer instead of your probes, you get a faster observer and are maybe 1-2 probes behind. Not a big gain or loss.
And if you use your larva-producing queen to make a creep tumor (which is sort of like a passive, defensive scout) you "lose" extra unit producing capability for 25 seconds, but don't gain a very good scout. You can also make an extra queen for 150 minerals, but you can ALSO make extra orbital commands (there's a MULE-based economy thread floating around).
So there is a sort of trade-off between scouting and money/units with the other races, but it's not as pronounced as in the case of the Terran. Scans delay 270 minerals, but the other races don't get such a big benefit from sacrificing scouting, so you can't say you "lose" 270 minerals by scanning.
|
No it does not cost 270 min because the minerals is still there. Just think that you are 270 minerals behind over the duration of the MULE every time you used a scan or SP drop.
|
On December 02 2010 21:24 Jeffbelittle wrote: My higher level math friends have pointed out to me that it depends on whether or not we considering "cost" as "opportunity cost", in that: are we considering it a "loss" of minerals if we choose to miss out on the opportunity of acquiring them by scanning.
When you scan, its physical cost is 50 energy. However: the opportunity potential of the 50 energy is 8 supply, 270 minerals over 90 seconds, or a scan. Now considering it at face value you're not losing 270 minerals over 90 seconds by scanning nor 8 supply. You simply just aren't gaining it. However: if we are talking about the opportunity cost, then yes: it exists. However, it's ridiclious to find because both a scan and 8 supply instantly being created aren't quantifiable values to measure the true loss between them and 270 minerals over 90 seconds.
I think it's safe to say; however, that it's not a detriment for a Terran to use a scan in the mid to late game rather than a mule. My reasoning for such is this: the information gained by scanning a person's base will more than likely allow you to build cost effective units to counter your opponent and thus make up, and even gain, resources over your opponent over the matter.
Yeah basicly anyone studying economy would say its a loss of 270 minerals. Opportunity cost is basicly equal to cost.
Also scanning too much costs games unless you do it, as you stated, in the mid late game. Anything before that is huge.
|
|
|
|