Is Scan really free or does it cost 270 minerals? - Page 5
Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
0mar
United States567 Posts
| ||
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
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? | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 30 2010 23:18 Hider wrote: 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.)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. | ||
Almania
145 Posts
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. | ||
Cerebrate.Monthly
United States21 Posts
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. | ||
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
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 | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 30 2010 23:05 arb wrote: 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.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. | ||
GoldenH
1115 Posts
On November 30 2010 23:07 Almania wrote: 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. | ||
EdSlyB
Portugal1621 Posts
| ||
SoftSoap
United States170 Posts
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 | ||
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
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. | ||
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
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. | ||
SnuggleZhenya
596 Posts
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. | ||
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
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. | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 30 2010 22:00 TrueIsAwesome wrote: 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.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. On November 30 2010 22:00 TrueIsAwesome wrote: Good point.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. | ||
Almania
145 Posts
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). | ||
GoldenH
1115 Posts
On December 01 2010 00:40 Almania wrote: 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. | ||
Almania
145 Posts
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. | ||
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On December 01 2010 01:02 Almania wrote: 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. | ||
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
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. | ||
| ||