| Forum Index > Closed |
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On April 27 2009 12:56 Purind wrote: Tanks are clumped and have 1 hp and are sieged Zealots are modified in the map editor to have enhanced stats oh true they could all have 1hp, unsieged. and lose? -shrug- Who really cares though? pointless OP =/ (unless he has something clever) | ||
|
n.DieJokes
United States3443 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
the tanks don't actually exist they are imaginary, zealots win the tanks have 0 hp and instantly die, zealots win the tanks are not actually tanks but are actually zealots with 0 hp, zealots win the zealots are fenixes and have 10000 hp, zealots win | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36402 Posts
On April 28 2009 05:38 Chef wrote: You can wave the white flag if you want, I'm still gonna blow your ass up if I don't like you. what? are you talking to me or him because my solutions to his problem fit perfectly given what he's said in this thread | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Your solutions were beautiful and I feel wiser from having read them  | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
The 10 tanks should win no problem. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
9 tanks in a very tight circular clump. all the zeals run into the middle of that clump, other tank blasts it all to hell. Remainder zeal runs to 1 tank and rapes due to unseige. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
LastShadow made the map specifically to play PvT! | ||
|
Sparkwind
United States42 Posts
every here is assuming they are siege mode. why use them in any other mode. siege tank = siege mode. if all i've got are three zealots, that probably means i've underproduced units, screwed up my economy, or been heavily attacked and taken heavy casualties by that point. sure i can do the theorizing with the best of them. ten siege tanks - if it were an ally game perhaps they are all hallucinations. ten siege tanks - where's my arbiter? stasis them, cloak my zealots. ten siege tanks - shuttle my zealots in ten siege tanks - except i have ten stargates and ten carriers in queue 90%! ten siege tanks - corsairs baby three zealots - and my army of dark templar! three zealots - run one in if they are all sieged then send in my SEAL TEAM three zealots - i got speed - i run and kill all their workers first because i'm closer to their base! not everything is tactical based on the situation. some situations you just got to assess correctly and save yourself time. lingering over a loss is traumatic to yourself, and everyone around you. | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 28 2009 08:24 Sparkwind wrote: if all i've got are three zealots, that probably means i've underproduced units, screwed up my economy, or been heavily attacked and taken heavy casualties by that point. 3 Zealots vs. 10 Tanks could just possibly be a situation where you have 4 bases vs. his 2 and more production. Maybe you just need to thin his tank count. Because of the vague definition of "win" in this situation (defeating him is obviously not possible, but coming out ahead on resources is), you can't really come up with a serious adequate answer. Honestly, I can't see what answers you expected to get, unless you were intentionally trolling. | ||
|
Sparkwind
United States42 Posts
there was an argument with a yahoo starcraft moderator, in which my statement that you don't need to lose units to win a StarCraft game. brought heavy criticism from that moderator. his point was that it was acceptable to him to send in units without any regard for their well being. my refutation, was that generals who care about their units well being win more battles. would you rather be seeing how many units you have alive after a battle, or counting how many dead. that was erased from my posts on that thread. in my first post here, i made reference to things i was ranting about, and people started going ballistic about that comment. i actually wrote something to the effect "the theory that good strategy includes acceptable losses is bad theory". it got me banned from my own blog (lol), and so i started a strategy blog post for those people who were still debating it. bunch of people jumped on here starting to analyze it for fun, which is cool, however some people didn't see the point of why i posted. that's about it - if there's anything else let me know. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 27 2009 12:31 Sparkwind wrote: three zealots. ten siege tanks. any way to win? there are no other units in queue, there are no other units not mentioned. On April 27 2009 12:39 Sparkwind wrote: most players send those zealots in. i call that a strategic error. the right play in this situation is surrender - it is an option. Since when does surrendering = winning? | ||
|
lesser_good
Canada698 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On April 28 2009 09:17 Sparkwind wrote: there was an argument with a yahoo starcraft moderator, in which my statement that you don't need to lose units to win a StarCraft game. brought heavy criticism from that moderator. his point was that it was acceptable to him to send in units without any regard for their well being. my refutation, was that generals who care about their units well being win more battles. As much as I doubt the intelligence of Yahoo moderators, I have a suspicion that you're oversimplifying his position. Blindly suiciding units won't let you win, but LOGICALLY giving up units in key situations (e.g. suiciding a force of relatively cheap and easily replaced zealots to thin the tank count) goes farther toward winning than reducing every loss possible. To use an extreme example, if you could use a single zealot bomb on a tank formation to take out 3 tanks, why WOULDN'T you? On April 28 2009 09:17 Sparkwind wrote: would you rather be seeing how many units you have alive after a battle, or counting how many dead. Neither. Its a combination of both, your position on the map, and what else you have in the background. Starcraft is complex enough that you can't reduce most encounters to a single number, or a binary decision of "win" or "lose". Whether suiciding those 3 zealots into 10 tanks was a win for you depends on so many other factors such as how quickly you can replace the zealots, how quickly he can replace the tanks, how much the resources cut out of your mining, how critical the zealots might have been to something else, what potential damage the tanks might cause before you can muster a force to beat them, etc. | ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
| ||
|
Sparkwind
United States42 Posts
(final - there are other answers BUT DONT RAMBLE THE THREAD) for the terran in that scenario the answer is a 90% probability of a yes. for the protoss in that scenario the answer is a 10% probability of a yes. given that both bases are in the early stage of the game. --> this is a important point made in the comments - and i was a bit dense about evaluating it from that perspective - at what stage in the game, and what transpired earlier in the game, the mindset of both players, it is quite possible the terran may quit if he doesn't not know that the other player only has three zealots and suspects a massive decoy effort, and so on. regarding the yahoo moderator - believe me he was stubborn about his position about how he viewed troops. and i was stubborn about how i view mine. there is value in keeping your units alive. if you don't mind losing a game to a pro or whoever you play, just try playing the game that way with the focus on trying to keep as many units alive as possible. you might see what i'm talking about. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
INu's Battles
Percival vs Cure
Classic vs Clem
Replay Cast
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Clem vs Solar
Serral vs Rogue
RSL Revival
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
