EPTZerg's Unsung Hero, The Broodling! - Page 4
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Msr
Korea (South)495 Posts
| ||
|
jfourz
Ireland421 Posts
| ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
Cost of hatch cancel to evo chamber: 75 minerals (cancel hatch) + 75 minerals (evo chamber) + 50 minerals (drone) : 200 minerals Net income of hatch cancel to evo chamber: Scouting. Cost of Overlord scouting: 100 minerals (sacrificed overlord) + 100 minerals (replacing overlord) : 200 minerals Net income of Overlord scouting: 8 supply, scouting. DOES ANYONE STILL NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE? | ||
|
Lochat
United States270 Posts
On March 20 2011 14:10 Zergtastic wrote: Allow me to copy and paste the maths. One Overlord = 100 minerals. Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac: One overlord to scout + one to replace. Two overlords = 200 minerals. Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting. If you wish to say that two overlords cost 100 minerals, please, do go ahead. Edit: Actually, you pretty much agree with me anyway after saying that if an overlord dies you need to replace it, which makes it another 100 minerals spent. I find it funny how you argue that Im wrong by proving my point to be correct. I...I...for the love of athe, tell me you're trolling. You're trolling, right? Do you... I just...I don't... I literally cannot fathom this... are you honestly... If you're trolling, 10/10. If you're not, holy my god shit fuck. One overlord costs 100 minerals. There is no magical fucking replace cost. Ever. Ever. If a unit costs 100 minerals, and it dies, you lost 100 minerals. I have a degree in logic and I cannot even think off the top of my head what sort of fallacy you're committing. This thought process may be so absurdly incoherent it may not even have a name. I think you're trolling, because I cannot comprehend that someone could possibly have this sort of thought process, but I will nonetheless explain what has been explained to you in very simple terms many time. If you take an overlord and you willingly sacrifice it, you lost 100 minerals. That is it. There is no magical replace cost, this "replace" cost is literally logically incoherent. I don't understand what you think "replacing" does. If you make two overlords, it costs 200 minerals. Yes. Very good, that seems to be, for some painfully poor happenstance of evolution, to be what you somehow think is important. But, nonetheless, I'll make this simple and even use 200 minerals since you seem to like that number despite the fact you make the laws of logic cry. I have 0/0 supply. I make two overlords for 200 minerals. I now have 0/16 supply. I scout and sac an overlord. An overlord dies, I now have 0/8 supply. For 200 minerals, I WENT UP 8 SUPPLY AND LOST AN OVERLORD.Do you know what this means? It means, and I hope so very much you understand this... That losing that one overlord only cost me 100 minerals. When I spend another 100 minerals I GAIN 100 MINERALS OF OVERLORD AND THUS 8 SUPPLY. Now, let us just use one overlord. Oh athe, please let me drilling this into the Earth be enough to also get it through someones skull. You are at 0/0 supply. You make an overlord. You are now at 0/8 supply. You send that overlord to scout and die. You are now at 0/0 supply. You spent 100 minerals, you did not go up nor down in supply. Do you know, (and please, please, start nodding your head now) what this means? You lost 100 minerals. Yes. You are now have the exact same supply as if you never made that overlord. You know what would happen if you never made that overlord? You would have... 100 more minerals. Because that is what you spent to make that overlord. It means if you make a scouting overlord and "replace" it, you GAIN EIGHT SUPPLY. YOU GAIN AN OVERLORD. MY GOD, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? You make two overlords, one dies, you STILL GO UP IN SUPPLY. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT LOSING ONE OVERLORD COST YOU 200 MINERALS. YOU GAINED 8 SUPPLY. THAT IS NOT ZERO-SUM, THAT IS A GAIN. I hope you understand, I really do. If you spend 200 minerals YOU GAIN 16 SUPPLY AND IF YOU LOSE ONE OF THOSE OVERLORDS YOU HAVE 8 SUPPLY LEFT. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE 100 MINERALS OF SUPPLY LEFT. THAT MEANS YOU LOST 100 MINERALS. I cannot... I do not want to be banned from TL but I'll be frank, given the restraint I have shown with minimal rants, I think I and everyone else in this thread that hasn't spouted non-stop profanities should be at least nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Seriously. What the hell. This is either the best troll, or the worst of humanity ever. | ||
|
PiLoKo
Mexico144 Posts
On March 20 2011 04:39 JTouche wrote: No, I'm not attempting to find a new cheese but an alternative to sac'ing overlords that sometimes never find out anything. It is reliable since you can literally scout the entire main as oppose to an overlord scouting only most of it. Broodlings could kill 2-3 workers if they don't micro them away. Really? Losing 16 supply and 200+ more minerals to build those overlords again IS more efficient? Can you explain the logic to me? 1 - Initially it is more expensive than scouting an overlord but when you build the replacement overlord you are dead even /w this technique. 2 - You can delay your expo 15-20 seconds to utilize this technique. It's a slight detriment but not gamebreaking in any way. 3 - You can anticipate a 4gate from poking and scouting army composition. At 8:20 you will be able to scout the entire base of what tech he chose guaranteed. PROBLEM? :D I hate when OPs comes with this kind of "No, I´m totally right, but yeah, this thread is for giving advice, so go ahead! just remember that your opinion will be wrong if it differs mine" Playes have different perspectives of the game, if you want to prove ppl wrong THE LEAST you could do is coming with some cute graphs about how banking 300 early game is better that sacking 2 OLs or vise versa. Its an interesting idea nonetheless, but my BOs with Zerg really don´t have those 300 minerals banked, I rather go with my feeling of what he is doing cause of timming before trying to do this work, maybe to freak him out a lil bit. | ||
|
Zergtastic
Australia81 Posts
On March 20 2011 15:19 Lochat wrote: If you're not, holy my god shit fuck. One overlord costs 100 minerals. There is no magical fucking replace cost. Ever. Ever. Well there is our problem. You don't ever make overlords, it seems. Thats the only way possible that it doesn't cost minerals to make another overlord. Sure, if you dont actually make another overlord, then its 100 minerals to scout. I dont get how you dont get the maths. I didnt say minerals lost, I said minerals spent due to scouting. You lose 100 minerals but you spent 200 minerals due to scouting. But you refrain from even attempting to understand and instead stutter, swear and insult me. This isn't about your opinion of me, this is the strategy section of the SC2 forums on this site. Edit: On March 20 2011 15:19 Lochat wrote: You are at 0/0 supply. You make an overlord. You are now at 0/8 supply. You send that overlord to scout and die. You are now at 0/0 supply. You spent 100 minerals, you did not go up nor down in supply. Do you know, (and please, please, start nodding your head now) what this means? You lost 100 minerals. Yes. You are now have the exact same supply as if you never made that overlord. You know what would happen if you never made that overlord? You would have... 100 more minerals. Because that is what you spent to make that overlord. Here is the same thing as what I said above, but in more words. So I finally get what you're doing, just saying you lost 100 minerals from losing an overlord. Cool. Then you need to make another one, because otherwise you will be supply blocked and die from a timing attack. So, since you have spent 100 minerals on the first overlord, and you need to spend 100 minerals more for one more overlord, how much is that? That is hmm... 200 minerals? "(and please, please, start nodding your head now)" | ||
|
Clog
United States950 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:01 Zergtastic wrote: Well there is our problem. You don't ever make overlords, it seems. Thats the only way possible that it doesn't cost minerals to make another overlord. Sure, if you dont actually make another overlord, then its 100 minerals to scout. I dont get how you dont get the maths. I didnt say minerals lost, I said minerals spent due to scouting. You lose 100 minerals but you spent 200 minerals due to scouting. But you refrain from even attempting to understand and instead stutter, swear and insult me. This isn't about your opinion of me, this is the strategy section of the SC2 forums on this site. Read the bolded section. He is right. You are not. 100 minerals was spent for scouting. The other 100 minerals was spent to deal with supply, which you do regardless of sacking an overlord. | ||
|
Zergtastic
Australia81 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:09 Clog wrote: Read the bolded section. He is right. You are not. 100 minerals was spent for scouting. The other 100 minerals was spent to deal with supply, which you do regardless of sacking an overlord. Yes, thats kinda the point. You must spend the extra 100 minerals. So cost due to scouting is 200 minerals. Yes, they serve different purposes. No, that doesn't mean that one should be forgotten. | ||
|
HalcyonMusic
Australia16 Posts
Building an Overlord: 100 minerals Building two Overlords: 200 minerals Now, the argument that you're putting forward, Zergtastic, is that when you scout with Overlords, you have to make two: one for scouting, and one for replacing the scouting overlord when it's sacced. But put it this way. I want to scout with an overlord. So, I spend 100 minerals for an overlord. Cost: 100 minerals. I then send this overlord to a position from where it can scout. No further cost. At whatever timing I decide, I send the overlord into the base. It dies. Sad occasion, much crying, scouting accomplished. At this point, I have spent 100 minerals. That was the cost of the overlord. That overlord was not built for supply - it was built for scouting. Since I have scouted, I do not need another scouting overlord for saccing purposes at this moment. Any further overlords produced are strictly for supply, and cannot be including in the cost of the scouting as that is not their purpose. Total cost; 100 minerals. Your confusion is coming from purpose. When an overlord dies, yes, you replace it. You spend a total of 200 minerals on those overlords, and one is dead. But the second one is built for supply, and won't die unless somebody comes along and destroys it. It did not scout. It was not a part of the scouting process. In fact, it's irrelevant to this discussion, because we're talking about how much it costs to scout with an overlord. So to conclude: I make overlord, costing 100 minerals I send overlord to base Overlord dies Scouting accomplished? Cost: 100 minerals Don't think of the overlord being replaced, because we're not replacing it. We're extending supply. We done? | ||
|
Lochat
United States270 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:01 Zergtastic wrote: Well there is our problem. You don't ever make overlords, it seems. Thats the only way possible that it doesn't cost minerals to make another overlord. Sure, if you dont actually make another overlord, then its 100 minerals to scout. I dont get how you dont get the maths. I didnt say minerals lost, I said minerals spent due to scouting. You lose 100 minerals but you spent 200 minerals due to scouting. But you refrain from even attempting to understand and instead stutter, swear and insult me. This isn't about your opinion of me, this is the strategy section of the SC2 forums on this site. Wow. I explained everything and you post this. Sorry, you are beyond redemption. There is no magic replace cost for an item. The items' value is the item's value regardless how many or how few you buy in the future. I have an overlord that cost 100 minerals. I lost an overlord that cost 100 minerals. It doesn't matter if I never buy another overlord the rest of the game. It doesn't matter if I buy ten thousand more. This is one of the most basic fundamentals of logic. It doesn't matter what you spend for on other objects, for the same or other purposes. Holy crap. I don't even... I weep. I honestly (metaphorically, at least) weep. I spent 100 dollars on an ipod. I throw away the ipod. I spent 100 dollars on new pair of shoes. Throwing away the ipod cost me 200 dollars. This is, literally, what you're doing if you break down what you're saying to logical form. The fact that the two items do or do not share a name isirrelevant. Not only did you only lose 100 dollars from the ipod, you gained the benefit of having it before you threw it away. Somehow, for some reason only a neurologist would know, being able to use something before throwing it away confuses you utterly. And yes, thanks for pointing out it's the strategy forum. That's for pointing out you literally ignore the laws of logic and you don't understand elementary math and thus nothing you can post can ever be removed from that taint. I don't want to commit the fallacy of poisoning the well, but when the guy next to me is yelling it's not poisoned the entire duration that it is, regardless of the evidence brought to light that makes it's obvious it's poisoned, it's not going to look good later on when you proclaim you've found the fountain of youth. I'm honestly done responding to you in this thread though, because you are single handily making me a misanthrope. | ||
|
CookieMaker
Canada880 Posts
Total spent = 200 minerals Total ovies produced = 2 It is a 100mineral sacrifice, period. I have to also agree with what many posters have said about the cost of 200 minerals early-game, or "opportunity cost" as my econ prof would say. It is far more expensive to "Lose" 200 minerals at an early stage of the game than it is to lose 100 minerals several minutes later, or worse, 200 minerals (2 ovies) several minutes later. Just not viable unless cheesing imo | ||
|
Polemarch
Canada1564 Posts
*ahem*... Let me explain what's going on in a way that might make more sense to everybody. Let us compare the scenario of sacrificing an overlord vs. the baseline of doing nothing. 1. The dead overlord was worth 100 minerals. Cost thus far: 100 minerals 2. You have to replace that overlord. 100 minerals. Cost thus far: 200 minerals 3. Don't forget that it took about 15 seconds for that overlord to travel and die. You've probably become supply blocked in that time, so you need to build a THIRD overlord. 100 minerals. Cost thus far: 300 minerals, 15 seconds 4. But in those 10 seconds, you've probably mined about 200 minerals. Cost thus far: 100 minerals, 15 seconds 5. But the scouting information you gained will allow you to optimize your build order by 15 seconds! SO the total cost is exactly 100 minerals and 0 seconds. /sarcasm More seriously; @Staboteur, that zvz mineral-line evo trick sounds interesting, particularly if you're going to be scouting anyway without going for an aggressive build. Seems like a lot of interesting variables like disrupting worker mining paths, long-lasting scouting information, the chance of killing drones (or hurting their mining time if they micro away), maybe keeping some of their zerglings occupied, etc. What made you stop doing this, just too expensive? | ||
|
Jeffbelittle
United States468 Posts
The OP is trying to find merit in spending 200 minerals at a time where 200 minerals is very pivotal on scouting where the exact thing is accomplished with 100 minerals at a time where it's completely acceptable to lose 100 minerals AND 8 SUPPLY worth. It just doesn't exist. I'm sorry. I'm sure you were being cute in a game 1 day and built a hatchery in his base, decided to cancel it because you realized that was stupid, then thought: "hey!" and built an evo chamber there, and because it wasn't completely useless you felt like god who just came up with the most awesome scouting strategy ever which you needed to tell the whole world about. Please, just realize that this isn't a very smart way to handle ZvP or ZvT scouting whatsoever? | ||
|
Gak2
Canada418 Posts
 /sarcasm | ||
|
HalcyonMusic
Australia16 Posts
It needs to be closed. Edit: Readability. | ||
|
Zergtastic
Australia81 Posts
Overlord saccing One overlord = 100 minerals. Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac: One overlord to scout + one to replace. Two overlords = 200 minerals. Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting. Sacrificed overlord supply = -8 Remade overlord supply = +8 Total overlord supply change = 0 Evo chamber scouting Drone = 50 minerals Evo chamber = 75 minerals Minerals lost from making then cancelling a hatchery = 300/4 = 75 50 + 75 + 75 = 200 minerals in total Cost to replace the drone = 50 minerals 200 + 50 = 250 minerals Therefore, 250 minerals have been spent due to scouting. Supply from losing drone = -1 Supply from remaking drone = +1 Total supply change = 0 If you want to look at only the cost to do the scouting, then it'd be 100 minerals to 200 minerals. But thats considering that leaves you at -8 supply for the overlord sac and at -1 supply for the evo chamber scout. So thats not an even and fair comparison, because you're not controlling the variable of supply. | ||
|
Lochat
United States270 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:48 Zergtastic wrote: I feel now as if I should apologize for my previous posts. I didnt show enough evidence. I'll rework my maths a bit. Overlord saccing One overlord = 100 minerals. Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac: One overlord to scout + one to replace. Two overlords = 200 minerals. Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting. Sacrificed overlord supply = -8 Remade overlord supply = +8 Total overlord supply change = 0 I lied I need to post. Oh my god. Oh. My. God. SUPPLY START: 0 SCOUTING OVERLORD +8 -- 100 minerals Now at + 8 supply. SCOUTING OVERLORD DIES -8 Now at +0 supply. REMADE SUPPLY OVERLORD + 8 - 100 Now at +8 supply. 0 + 8 - 8 + 8 = 8. 0 + 100 + 100 cost 0 + 8 + 8 supply. 200 minerals = 16 supply. -8 supply = 100 minerals left. 200 minerals - 100 minerals = 100 minerals. You. Are. Beyond. Help. Jesus. Christ. Edit: Just incase it's not apparent, I'm not being a jackass without cause if you suddenly spot this post. Read all my previous posts trying to explain the same, simple thing and somehow he doesn't understand and has the audacity to try to be condescending while failing first grade math. | ||
|
HalcyonMusic
Australia16 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:48 Zergtastic wrote: Overlord saccing One overlord = 100 minerals. Overlords required to be made in order to overlord sac: One overlord to scout + one to replace. Two overlords = 200 minerals. Therefore, 200 minerals have been spent due to scouting. Sacrificed overlord supply = -8 Remade overlord supply = +8 Total overlord supply change = 0 No. No, no, no, no, no. I appreciate that you're being civil about this. But your logic is wrong. Guide: ['Cost','Supply Change','Difference between initial and final supply'] I make an overlord: [100, +8, +8] I sac that overlord: [100, -8, 0] I rebuild the lost overlord: [200. +8, 0] In the end, I've spent 200 minerals and gained 8 supply. Since 100 minerals was spent to gain that 8 supply, I've spent 100 minerals on the lost overlord. Hence, 100 minerals lost to scouting. Sacrificing the overlord does reduce your supply by 8, yes, but building it in the first place gave you 8 supply. So when you lose it, your gain/loss of supply is 0. You've spent 100 minerals? I hope that this is clear. If you need clarification,say so. Edit: Just beat me to it, Lochat. | ||
|
HalcyonMusic
Australia16 Posts
| ||
|
Lochat
United States270 Posts
On March 20 2011 16:55 _Halcyon_ wrote: No. No, no, no, no, no. I appreciate that you're being civil about this. But your logic is wrong. Guide: ['Cost','Supply Change','Difference between initial and final supply'] I make an overlord: [100, +8, +8] I sac that overlord: [100, -8, 0] I rebuild the lost overlord: [200. +8, 0] In the end, I've spent 200 minerals and gained 8 supply. Since 100 minerals was spent to gain that 8 supply, I've spent 100 minerals on the lost overlord. Hence, 100 minerals lost to scouting. Sacrificing the overlord does reduce your supply by 8, yes, but building it in the first place gave you 8 supply. So when you lose it, your gain/loss of supply is 0. You've spent 100 minerals? I hope that this is clear. If you need clarification,say so. Edit: Just beat me to it, Lochat. I've spelled it out in like, seven different ways before as well many other people being kind enough to help. It's just absurd at this point. I hope I'm being trolled, because this is to math what creationism is to biology. | ||
| ||
