EPTWhy does flash play terran? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
| ||
|
krooked
376 Posts
1. No, it isn't an ad hominem the way I used it. I simply insulted you. An ad hominem is saying your argument is flawed or wrong because you are stupid. Don't use words you do not understand. 2. No, I never said standard m&m "must be practiced to climb up the ranks". I said people play those builds because they are the theoretically strongest. If I focused on whatever is used to climb ranks, I would focus on each races respective cheese builds. Guess which race has the best and most viable cheese builds, just as an aside? Its not terran. 3. You keep focusing on whether I have a bias or not. It simply isn't relevant. Lets say I am the most biased person in the history of the universe - that doesn't mean I am wrong. Nor does being unbiased mean anyone is right. It isn't relevant. | ||
|
krooked
376 Posts
On July 28 2021 08:26 QOGQOG wrote: krooked, I get that you will likely never be convinced on this point by anything anyone says. But if you exclude all arguments from the discussion that even might challenge your own position, you're just wasting everyone's time. Most of all your own, since such a clearly biased set of "allowed" argumentation won't be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. What is this even supposed to mean? I haven't excluded any argument. I've centered my own argument around SK Terran in TvZ, and Magic Powers insist on shoe horning my argument to be about mech in TvZ. You, just as Magic Powers, is so pent up about my "bias", instead of actually refuting the points I am making. You do two things: 1) accuse me of being biased, and 2) harp on about the fact that Z or P has challenges of their own. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3950 Posts
On July 28 2021 09:00 krooked wrote: 2. No, I never said standard m&m "must be practiced to climb up the ranks". I said people play those builds because they are the theoretically strongest. If I focused on whatever is used to climb ranks, I would focus on each races respective cheese builds. Guess which race has the best and most viable cheese builds, just as an aside? Its not terran. If the purpose of practicing standard m&m isn't to climb up the ranks, then why did you say this: No, the argument is perfectly straight. People at lower level follow the meta at higher level because they want to learn to play the strongest style of play, not whatever nets them the easiest strategic wins, such as just spamming strange all ins. Why would people want to "learn the strongest style of play" as you call it, if not to climb up the ranks? Terrans at lower levels are just looking to improve their skills with m&ms, but without the immediate goal of improving their winrates? Meanwhile lower level zerg players are somehow different? They don't "learn the strongest style of play"? Only lower level terran players do that? Why are the lower level zerg players not following the same philosophy as the lower level terran players? It's obvious why: because you're wrong. Neither the terran players nor the zerg players are doing what you're claiming they're doing. They're all putting roughly equal effort to win more games. The ones who succeed are the ones who practice the best strats and mechanics. That means terran players practice m&m and zerg players practice muta micro. With enough practice those players eventually set themselves apart from the rest of the field. Everyone who doesn't do that remains stuck at the lower levels, regardless of race. You claim that the terran players have to practice m&m in order to... (what ... NOT get better??), but zerg players don't have to practice muta micro in order to... (get... even better than they already are?) Your argument is all over the place. Your bias towards terran is obvious. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On July 28 2021 09:00 krooked wrote: Magic Powers: 1. No, it isn't an ad hominem the way I used it. I simply insulted you. An ad hominem is saying your argument is flawed or wrong because you are stupid. Don't use words you do not understand. 2. No, I never said standard m&m "must be practiced to climb up the ranks". I said people play those builds because they are the theoretically strongest. If I focused on whatever is used to climb ranks, I would focus on each races respective cheese builds. Guess which race has the best and most viable cheese builds, just as an aside? Its not terran. 3. You keep focusing on whether I have a bias or not. It simply isn't relevant. Lets say I am the most biased person in the history of the universe - that doesn't mean I am wrong. Nor does being unbiased mean anyone is right. It isn't relevant. Quick question, why do you think protoss has the worst tournament results in OSL, MSL, ASL, KCM and currently in top 100 ladder? Is it because they are easier to play? | ||
|
krooked
376 Posts
2. Yes, Zerg players that want to mimic "standard" play at the highest level will play with mutas and defilers, which is harder than not playing with those champions. You claim that the terran players have to practice m&m in order to... (what ... NOT get better??), but zerg players don't have to practice muta micro in order to... (get... even better than they already are?) No, this isn't my claim and never has been. You cannot find it anywhere, except for making it up yourself. My claim is plainly that playing Terran is harder than playing Zerg, including bio vs Z. Zerg players can play a host of viable, played at top level styles that does not require high level of muta micro or defiler micro and still easily outperform similarly skilled MM players, simply because to be minimally effective as SK Terran requires more skill than to be minimally effective with mutas or defilers. Your bias towards terran is obvious. Yet wholly irrelevant. I wonder when you'll let this go? They're all putting roughly equal effort to win more games. So if I understand you correctly, by this you mean that all races are somehow perfectly equal in terms of difficulty? Or what exactly do you mean? Different players put in different levels of effort. Terran takes more effort to perform at the same level of play than for example Protoss. If you are so sure that isn't the case, lets hear your case for why that is so. Quick question, why do you think protoss has the worst tournament results in OSL, MSL, ASL, KCM and currently in top 100 ladder? Is it because they are easier to play? At the highest level, the mechanics and game understanding is at such a level that the requirements to play Terran effectively doesn't hinder the Terran performance, like it does at lower levels. Lets put it like this: Imagine three racecars, where all are equally powerful, but one has aggressive steering, zero traction control etc., while the other one has some amount of that, and the last one has a huge amount of traction control, ABS etc., to the point of hampering performance. For beginners, the most aided car will be quickest, because they lack skill at driving. Once people have put in thousands and thousands of hours, the least aided car is likely the quickest, and the aids might actually inhibit the performers of that car. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On July 28 2021 10:11 krooked wrote: 1. I literally, in the text you quoted, explained what I meant. 2. Yes, Zerg players that want to mimic "standard" play at the highest level will play with mutas and defilers, which is harder than not playing with those champions. No, this isn't my claim and never has been. You cannot find it anywhere, except for making it up yourself. My claim is plainly that playing Terran is harder than playing Zerg, including bio vs Z. Zerg players can play a host of viable, played at top level styles that does not require high level of muta micro or defiler micro and still easily outperform similarly skilled MM players, simply because to be minimally effective as SK Terran requires more skill than to be minimally effective with mutas or defilers. Yet wholly irrelevant. I wonder when you'll let this go? So if I understand you correctly, by this you mean that all races are somehow perfectly equal in terms of difficulty? Or what exactly do you mean? Different players put in different levels of effort. Terran takes more effort to perform at the same level of play than for example Protoss. If you are so sure that isn't the case, lets hear your case for why that is so. At the highest level, the mechanics and game understanding is at such a level that the requirements to play Terran effectively doesn't hinder the Terran performance, like it does at lower levels. Lets put it like this: Imagine three racecars, where all are equally powerful, but one has aggressive steering, zero traction control etc., while the other one has some amount of that, and the last one has a huge amount of traction control, ABS etc., to the point of hampering performance. For beginners, the most aided car will be quickest, because they lack skill at driving. Once people have put in thousands and thousands of hours, the least aided car is likely the quickest, and the aids might actually inhibit the performers of that car. So why do we even care about balance at any level besides the very top? Shouldnt the highest level be the gold standard for all balance discussion? Yeah TvP and TvZ might be difficult for Artosis at his level. Should I really value his opinion any more than Light, Rush, Mini etc? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3950 Posts
On July 28 2021 10:11 krooked wrote: 1. I literally, in the text you quoted, explained what I meant. 2. Yes, Zerg players that want to mimic "standard" play at the highest level will play with mutas and defilers, which is harder than not playing with those champions. No, this isn't my claim and never has been. You cannot find it anywhere, except for making it up yourself. My claim is plainly that playing Terran is harder than playing Zerg, including bio vs Z. Zerg players can play a host of viable, played at top level styles that does not require high level of muta micro or defiler micro and still easily outperform similarly skilled MM players, simply because to be minimally effective as SK Terran requires more skill than to be minimally effective with mutas or defilers. Your argument was that terran is more difficult overall than zerg, which I disputed. You use bio as the metric, even though goliath builds exist. And I don't care how many more times you reject that alternative. It's a real and viable build, it's especially viable at lower ranks, and so it adds to the overall evaluation. I point this out especially since you keep referring to zerg having viable options other than muta micro, therefore out of fairness to the zerg players I will keep referring to goliath builds. I won't drop that argument just because it's not convenient for your case. You shift the argument towards terrans wanting to get better playing m&m builds, but in the same breath you reject the argument that zergs likewise would want to get better using muta micro. As long as I'm involved in this discussion I will point out your double standard until you acknowledge it or you drop that particular argument, since it's only valid if considered equally from both the terran and zerg perspective. You claim that zerg players "easily outperform similarly skilled m&m players" without high level muta micro or defiler micro. But that is an unsubstantiated assertion that I choose to reject. I want to see evidence for that claim, because it doesn't match my own experience and understanding. They're all putting roughly equal effort to win more games. So if I understand you correctly, by this you mean that all races are somehow perfectly equal in terms of difficulty? Or what exactly do you mean? Different players put in different levels of effort. Terran takes more effort to perform at the same level of play than for example Protoss. If you are so sure that isn't the case, lets hear your case for why that is so. I wouldn't know which race is "the most difficult". I believe protoss requires less effort against terran specifically at the lower ranks (I don't know precise numbers though. For that I'd require access to a detailed breakdown of the ladder statistics for ranks, races, matchups, populations, etc. and ways of eliminating various selection biases). This is pretty much agreed on by the majority of experienced players, including those at the top. Protoss is often considered the "easy to learn, hard to master" race (at least when facing terran). What I do know is that the difficulty for each race quickly converges as they approach the middle and upper ranks. I don't know what you mean by "level of play". Do you mean rank? If so, then terran only takes more effort at the lower ranks and only against protoss. At the middle and upper ranks though, TvP difficulty mostly if not fully converges for both races. I've played this matchup a lot from both perspectives and I can't tell a meaningful difference in the difficulty-to-results ratio after escaping the lower ranks. TvZ has a very similar difficulty for both races at every rank. | ||
|
krooked
376 Posts
So why do we even care about balance at any level besides the very top? Shouldnt the highest level be the gold standard for all balance discussion? Yeah TvP and TvZ might be difficult for Artosis at his level. Should I really value his opinion any more than Light, Rush, Mini etc? Well, it isn't a question of balance per se - it is a question of difficulty. As we approach perfect play, maybe Zerg is "easier" i.e more effective, or maybe its Terran, or maybe its Protoss - who knows. Since the vast amount of players are way, way, way below that skill level, when talking of difficulty we are talking about more normally skilled players, lets say F to A rank for instance. Lets just say that three completely new players start playing the game, and they go to a sort of starcraft school, where they are taking "macro 101", "builds 101", "micro 101", etc. Lets assume each player has identical genetics and all the teachers are equally good etc., so they develop as players at the exact same speed. After 1 year of this, they would all be equally rated on these "objective" RTS metrics, such as macro and micro etc, plus they have x amount of knowledge about race specific stuff. My postulate is this: The Zerg and Protoss player would heavily outperform the Terran player, simply because the skill required to be effective with Terran is higher than the skill required to be effective at a similar level with Zerg and Protoss. The reasons of which I (and others, including kogeT) has summed up earlier in the thread. Magic Powers: 1. You make a mistake when you say that I "reject the argument that zergs likewise would want to get better using muta micro" - thats completely fair, and I agree - the meta is to use muta and defilers, and so when considering only bio, we can also limit ourselves to consider only muta and defiler "standard" play. As already mentioned, it is a higher skill floor on using bio effectively than mutas and defilers, simply because 1) MM is essentially your entire army 2) you must have several control groups of them 3) the difficulty of using them must be seen in context with general difficulty of playing terran, which already puts a strain on APM 4) They are extremely brittle, must cast spells to be effective etc. Defilers can, with a single click of a button, make or break a game. At lower levels, to use defilers effectively isn't really necessary to win even when going muta/ling/defiler in the same way bio play is necessary in SK Terran. And even if we were to say it was, it still isn't as difficult (again, at lower levels of play). When speaking of "lower levels of play", since I can already imagine you typing something about "changing the goalposts": When talking about "difficulty", it should be obvious that we are not talking about the highest levels of play - those players have thousands upon tens of thousands of games under their belt, and we know that Terran has performed well in tournaments - there are no reasons to believe Terran players are just inherently more talented than others, and so it should be very obvious that when talking about difficulty, we are talking about lower levels of play. + Show Spoiler + You claim that zerg players "easily outperform similarly skilled m&m players" without high level muta micro or defiler micro. But that is an unsubstantiated assertion that I choose to reject. I want to see evidence for that claim, because it doesn't match my own experience and understanding. There is no proving this. I can't prove that playing marine/medic vs reaver/ht builds is harder than 7pooling every game either. If you choose to reject it, be my guest. What I do know is that the difficulty for each race quickly converges as they approach the middle and upper ranks. At least we can agree on one thing TvZ has a very similar difficulty for both races at every rank. Equally as unsubstantiated as my claim. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3950 Posts
On July 28 2021 12:14 krooked wrote:As already mentioned, it is a higher skill floor on using bio effectively than mutas and defilers, simply because 1) MM is essentially your entire army 2) you must have several control groups of them 3) the difficulty of using them must be seen in context with general difficulty of playing terran, which already puts a strain on APM 4) They are extremely brittle, must cast spells to be effective etc. I don't get this part. m&m is two separate units, so is muta&ling. Add science vessels and tanks to terran, well zerg adds lurkers and scourges. They both keep adding new units to their arsenal; and using those units in combat, or preparing them for combat, isn't any easier on the zerg side. If you think it is, I dare you to practice ZvT as much as TvZ and compare the difference. I've tried, and it has frustrated me how insanely difficult to control the common ZvT unit compositions are, despite weeks of practice, and how quickly a zerg force can fall apart after just one or two small mistakes. There's so much nuance that goes into ZvT micro that I can't put to words. And that's just the battle itself. Then there's the positional maneuvering that zerg almost constantly has to do on the map, because otherwise terran can figure out exactly when, where and how to strike, while zerg doesn't. Zerg basically has to dance all over the place and dive in and out many times without taking too much damage, and all that is just pre-fight. I say that you're strongly underestimating how hard zerg is against terran. TvZ has a very similar difficulty for both races at every rank. Equally as unsubstantiated as my claim. My claim is far more substantiated, because terran shows a small winrate advantage over zerg (although not so big that it would indicate a huge difference in difficulty). If there is a meaningful difference in the difficulty, the suspicion would have to be that it's zerg who actually has to work harder, not terran. When looking at the winrate alone, that's the first thing that would come to my mind. It's very clear that your case is based a lot more on opinion than fact. | ||
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
On July 28 2021 09:01 krooked wrote: What is this even supposed to mean? I haven't excluded any argument. I've centered my own argument around SK Terran in TvZ, and Magic Powers insist on shoe horning my argument to be about mech in TvZ. You, just as Magic Powers, is so pent up about my "bias", instead of actually refuting the points I am making. You do two things: 1) accuse me of being biased, and 2) harp on about the fact that Z or P has challenges of their own. For someone who calls people "slow" for not understanding simple points, you sure seem to have trouble understanding simple points. If you are trying, as you are, to argue that Terran is the hardest race to play, then "centering" your argument around a single style for a single matchup makes no sense whatsoever. I don't have much hope of getting through to you, but I'll give it one last try. Consider the these two statements: 1. Terran is hard. 2. Terran is harder than Zerg and Protoss. These aren't the same statement. But whether you intend to or not, you seem to be treating them as such. You list things that are hard about Terran (point one) and then act as though you've shown that Terran is the most difficult race (point two). But point one is an absolute statement, one where the veracity wouldn't change even if there weren't any other races in the game. Whereas point two is relative: whether or not Terran is difficult is mostly irrelevant to the question of whether it's harder than other races, what matters is its difficulty in comparison to the difficulty of Zerg and Protoss. When you act baffled about why people are bringing up P and Z it's because they're trying to actually discuss point two (by pointing out challenges that are as bad or worse for Z or P, in order to compare with T) and you seemingly want to argue about point one. Which no one is disagreeing with you about. On the rare occasions you do mention difficulties for other races it's in the context of saying how whatever it is is actually harder for Terran or dismissing whatever it is as irrelevant (which has led to some pretty ridiculous statements, like that Protoss can't be cheesed and doesn't need to scout in PvT). Which is why people keep talking about your bias, myself included. You're ignoring any real discussion of point two to keep arguing point one. So the entire conversation goes nowhere because you're having a different argument than everyone else. I've explained this twice already, and I don't think there's a simpler way to put it. Feel free to just ignore it like the last two, but even if you continue to disagree I hope this will prompt some small understanding of where the people you're disagreeing with are coming from. | ||
|
krooked
376 Posts
I don't get this part. m&m is two separate units, so is muta&ling. Add science vessels and tanks to terran, well zerg adds lurkers and scourges. They both keep adding new units to their arsenal; and using those units in combat, or preparing them for combat, isn't any easier on the zerg side. If you think it is, I dare you to practice ZvT as much as TvZ and compare the difference. I've tried, and it has frustrated me how insanely difficult to control the common ZvT unit compositions are, despite weeks of practice, and how quickly a zerg force can fall apart after just one or two small mistakes. There's so much nuance that goes into ZvT micro that I can't put to words. And that's just the battle itself. Then there's the positional maneuvering that zerg almost constantly has to do on the map, because otherwise terran can figure out exactly when, where and how to strike, while zerg doesn't. Zerg basically has to dance all over the place and dive in and out many times without taking too much damage, and all that is just pre-fight. I say that you're strongly underestimating how hard zerg is against terran. Again, we could always bring up stuff that are hard from all races ad infinitum. I think it is easier for Zerg to play the matchup than it is for terran for several reasons. Micro is only one part of the equation. + Show Spoiler + When looking at the winrate alone, that's the first thing that would come to my mind. It's very clear that your case is based a lot more on opinion than fact. Winrates doesn't say anything about how difficult it is to play a race. If Terran is more difficult, that would simply mean that, lets say just for example, a B terran player in "objective skill", would have an actual rank of C instead - because his skill doesn't translate into wins because of the difficulty of playing Terran. Meanwhile, lets say, Protoss would be so easy that a B rank Protoss is actually a C ranked player in "objective skill". If you are trying, as you are, to argue that Terran is the hardest race to play, then "centering" your argument around a single style for a single matchup makes no sense whatsoever. I get it, its too hard to actually read the discussion and figure out what is going on. So let me help you: I never centered my argument around this, this is only one part of my argument which Magic Powers and others wanted to discuss further. + Show Spoiler + These aren't the same statement. But whether you intend to or not, you seem to be treating them as such. You list things that are hard about Terran (point one) and then act as though you've shown that Terran is the most difficult race (point two). No, I don't claim to have proven anything. I am stating the difficulties that make Terran more difficult. Why they are more difficult, I cannot prove. You can say "Its easier to play mech than to play bio, because x, y and z", and I can say "no, bio is actually harder because a, b and c". Nobody has proven anything, but one is right and one is wrong. I've gone to great lengths comparing the difficulties of each race. I'm not sure if you've bothered reading my posts? + Show Spoiler + (which has led to some pretty ridiculous statements, like that Protoss can't be cheesed and doesn't need to scout in PvT) Typical straw man argument. I've never said that. Cheeses and all ins are more viable and stronger from P than from T, which is why you will see way more cheesy all ins from P than T generally. I mean feel free to insist that Terran actually has way more cheeses and that they are stronger and seen more often etc. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then (i.e., you're wrong). + Show Spoiler + Which is why people keep talking about your bias, myself included. You're ignoring any real discussion of point two to keep arguing point one. So the entire conversation goes nowhere because you're having a different argument than everyone else. No, this is a result of you and magic insisting on harping on about the TvZ point. I've made several others, and my argument doesn't hinge on SK Terran specifically at all. + Show Spoiler + I've explained this twice already, and I don't think there's a simpler way to put it. Feel free to just ignore it like the last two, but even if you continue to disagree I hope this will prompt some small understanding of where the people you're disagreeing with are coming from. What am I ignoring? I keep answering line by line, addressing every claim. You know what you and magic are ignoring? Almost every argument except for one; whether or not mech should be included in the discussion or not. | ||
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + (which has led to some pretty ridiculous statements, like that Protoss can't be cheesed and doesn't need to scout in PvT) Typical straw man argument. I've never said that. Cheeses and all ins are more viable and stronger from P than from T, which is why you will see way more cheesy all ins from P than T generally. I mean feel free to insist that Terran actually has way more cheeses and that they are stronger and seen more often etc. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then (i.e., you're wrong). From "boohoo strawman" to making bizarre claims about me thinking T has stronger cheese than P in just one paragraph, even though the actual quote from me says nothing of the sort. Nice. Also, this is how you describe PvT: On July 27 2021 23:07 krooked wrote: TvP: Scouting: - Terran must scout for proxy 2gate (and other proxies such as reaver etc), identify whether an expand is coming up or not - or they autolose to DTs, fast Zealots etc. - Terran must look for timing of bases, number of gates, tech choice / playstyle What does Protoss need to do ? Countering even the strongest all in (2fact) can be done with pure kiting micro, no need for any specific response in terms of build. If, however, P goes DTs or fast reaver, Terran MUST get ebay + turrets or it is simply over. There is no way to counter it once it has been made obvious, as is the case with any Terran cheese. If you're not going to remember what I've said, at least remember what you said. Maybe look up proxy factories and vulture drops while you're at it. On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + Which is why people keep talking about your bias, myself included. You're ignoring any real discussion of point two to keep arguing point one. So the entire conversation goes nowhere because you're having a different argument than everyone else. No, this is a result of you and magic insisting on harping on about the TvZ point. I've made several others, and my argument doesn't hinge on SK Terran specifically at all. My one real comment on TvZ was that you seemed weirdly fixated on it. You seem weirdly fixated on it. Magic was arguing that the fact you don't need to go SK Terran makes the difficulty of doing so less relevant to discussions of the trials and tribulations of TvZ. I think that's reasonable, but it's not in any way the point of my post. On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + I've explained this twice already, and I don't think there's a simpler way to put it. Feel free to just ignore it like the last two, but even if you continue to disagree I hope this will prompt some small understanding of where the people you're disagreeing with are coming from. What am I ignoring? I keep answering line by line, addressing every claim. You know what you and magic are ignoring? Almost every argument except for one; whether or not mech should be included in the discussion or not. Dude, you literally cut out the core of my argument and then went "what an I ignoring?" Clearly I should never have mentioned TvZ even in passing. Ignore that paragraph. Read the rest of what I actually wrote rather than picking a couple sentences out of context and then making up a position to argue against based on those sentences. | ||
|
krooked
376 Posts
From "boohoo strawman" to making bizarre claims about me thinking T has stronger cheese than P in just one paragraph, even though the actual quote from me says nothing of the sort. Nice. Also, this is how you describe PvT: That is literally, and obviously, what you are implying. So its not a straw man, which your argument was. Again, I never said that and the quote you provided literally proved it. My one real comment on TvZ was that you seemed weirdly fixated on it. You seem weirdly fixated on it. Magic was arguing that the fact you don't need to go SK Terran makes the difficulty of doing so less relevant to discussions of the trials and tribulations of TvZ. I think that's reasonable, but it's not in any way the point of my post. How am I fixated on it? I am replying to people discussing it further. I've made no cherry picking of sentences, I've addressed your claims straight up. | ||
|
TMNT
2656 Posts
I am stating the difficulties that make Terran more difficult. Why they are more difficult, I cannot prove. Lol. Krooked, are you a joke or something. Is this a real sentence? It's like me saying "I am smarter than you. Why am I smarter, I cannot prove". But somehow I'm right and you're wrong. Also, you literally said this 2 pages before: + Show Spoiler + Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta This is just an example of your many false information to disregard the difficulties of P and Z, and now you're pretending you never said them? I mean, on which universe does P or Z not need to scout what T is doing lol. So as a Protoss you are freely to do whatever you want? Great, maybe I'm going Carrier off 2 Gates while double expanding. It's probably fine, because I can micro my Dragoon to fend off the threat of 5 Fact. | ||
|
Bonyth
Poland554 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/L3ZBrBE.png) | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On July 28 2021 18:24 TMNT wrote: Lol. Krooked, are you a joke or something. Is this a real sentence? It's like me saying "I am smarter than you. Why am I smarter, I cannot prove". But somehow I'm right and you're wrong. Also, you literally said this 2 pages before: + Show Spoiler + Any build that requires P or Z to scout what T is doing is completely outside of the meta This is just an example of your many false information to disregard the difficulties of P and Z, and now you're pretending you never said them? I mean, on which universe does P or Z not need to scout what T is doing lol. So as a Protoss you are freely to do whatever you want? Great, maybe I'm going Carrier off 2 Gates while double expanding. It's probably fine, because I can micro my Dragoon to fend off the threat of 5 Fact. Im smarter, stronger, sexier than all of you, as i elaborated in a lengthy discussion of myself. How that compares to you people, i cannot prove! I know it to be true regardless, because i'm really so smart that an actual fair comparison is not needed. Awesome logic i agree. This thread is a pearl in TL's history and needa to be archived for our children. | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On July 29 2021 00:04 Bonyth wrote: Saw that on your stream, great explanation imo (: | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3950 Posts
On July 28 2021 14:23 krooked wrote: + Show Spoiler + When looking at the winrate alone, that's the first thing that would come to my mind. It's very clear that your case is based a lot more on opinion than fact. Winrates doesn't say anything about how difficult it is to play a race. If Terran is more difficult, that would simply mean that, lets say just for example, a B terran player in "objective skill", would have an actual rank of C instead - because his skill doesn't translate into wins because of the difficulty of playing Terran. Meanwhile, lets say, Protoss would be so easy that a B rank Protoss is actually a C ranked player in "objective skill". This might be the most absurd argument I've read from you so far. If I see that terrans are overperforming against zerg (and we're assuming that I have no information outside of that), and someone asked me to point to the race that is likely more difficult to play as a consequence of my observation, then I'd point to zerg first, not terran. You'd pick terran first. That makes absolutely no logical sense. | ||
|
Timebon3s
Norway687 Posts
| ||
| ||
