Just stop it.
Is Scan really free or does it cost 270 minerals? - Page 3
Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
QofQfromtehQ
29 Posts
Just stop it. | ||
TrueIsAwesome
Finland160 Posts
On November 30 2010 21:29 [F_]aths wrote: 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: 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. | ||
ltortoise
633 Posts
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. | ||
Almania
145 Posts
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. | ||
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
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. | ||
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
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. | ||
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
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. | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 30 2010 21:50 BurningSera wrote: This is not true, see edit #4 in OP.if a scan costs 270minerals, any building that a zerg make costs INFINITE minerals. 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. | ||
Roban
Netherlands73 Posts
Definition of COST Dictionary1 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 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? | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
: 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. | ||
Almania
145 Posts
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. | ||
ltortoise
633 Posts
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." | ||
Roban
Netherlands73 Posts
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. | ||
foppa
Canada451 Posts
| ||
arb
Noobville17917 Posts
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 | ||
machination
United States175 Posts
| ||
cavalier3024
Israel19 Posts
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 | ||
TrueIsAwesome
Finland160 Posts
On November 30 2010 22:09 Almania wrote: 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. | ||
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
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. | ||
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
On November 30 2010 22:13 Roban wrote: 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? 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. | ||
| ||