Do you honestly believe that when it’s a matter of managing 1 hero unit? David Kim said quite clearly that Terran wasn’t designed to have hard mechanics. Zerg is the race designed to have hard mechanics. Terran was designed to have hard micro. That was back in HotS. They’ve removed the hard micro. The BC, cyclones, tanks, thors, etc are not even remotely comparable in difficulty to HotS era biomine micro. Terran has retained the easy mechanics (e.g., free workers, stacking macro mechanics, free supply depots, etc). What made terran hard has been removed but what made it easy was kept. It is the easy race of SC2.
If you’re leaning into this whole “I’m too stupid to draw simple conclusions from basic facts” nonsense, I’m not going to enable you.
You’re the one saying Terran is so hard it obliterates new players rankings through repeated losses then doing a complete 180 and saying there is no possible way a player could tell that Terran is harder (if it were). Newbs pick terran and stick with it, and that is proof that they think terran is easier. If Terran were harder, they’d be able to tell and they would switch race yet they don’t.
Dude, you’re reaching “trying to lick your ear” levels here. Not going to accuse you of being smart, but you’re smarter than that.
1 Like
That’s because you are too offended by the fact that I am.
I’ll give you, you’re not stupid. You’re just no where near as smart as you think you are. And even you know, that that’s no where near as smart as me.
1 Like
That’s what you choose to believe because you cannot and will not admit the truth.
I like that he picks out the part about him rather than the part in which Bourne states he’s smarter. Narcissism over competition I guess.
More like I don’t actually read his post and just glance at a few words.
This is an imprecise statement, the proper statement would be “The top players who play Terran are favored to win”.
The fact that Terran is the most popular race in Korea could also explain why they also have the best players.
As much as tehbatz tries to push his fault analysis to everyone we have to remember that correlation =/= causation.
Never have I once claimed that correlation = causation and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You won’t, because you know you are wrong. Never once have you proven that my analyses are faulty, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Again, you won’t because you know you are wrong.
Mate you don’t even know how to sample correctly, proper random sampling is one of the critical assumptions behind every one of the statistical methods you try to use.
Also wrong, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I have posted plenty of posts about statistics so if I do not understand how to sample it should very easy for you to find one and demonstrate your point. You won’t, because you know you are wrong.
The last time you said I didn’t know what I was talking about I linked you directly to the alphastar paper, thus proving I was right and that you were wrong, so forgive me if my default conclusion is that you are wrong. It also happened to be on the subject of sampling.
You need to realize that their sample didn’t include enough games vs players who go lurkers
Your claim that a random sample didn’t have enough games against X strategies.
Also lets not forget your constant brilliant claim that you should only look at the top X amount of players (because lowering the bar a little bit would show zerg dominates right?)
Give me a break, you frequently show you either haven’t taken or didn’t pay attention to a stats 101 class.
They literally stated as much in the alphastar paper. Are you REALLY saying that I don’t know what I am talking about BECAUSE I agreed with credible researchers? That is absurd.
Provide a link, please. I have done many analyses so you’ll need to be more specific.
Ahh ok, if your going to start lying again im just going to re-ignore you.
And let me ask you before I block you again, whats your background in statistics? Because I’m currently a graduate student in the field, have you even taken stats 101?
It’s not a lie. I said their sample wasn’t large enough to allow for repeat play. They stated the same in their paper. It is you who is lying and I can prove it through past quotes and the alphastar paper.
Since we’re going to resort to these sorts of arguments
Sorry kid there is no way you’re a stats grad. You regularly butcher the basics on topics such as how to sample. Unlike you, I am actually right so I can back my claims up with facts - here is a great example:
This was your reply to my point that the alphastar ladder sample was too small. You were angry that it wasn’t large enough to account for things repeat play. You called me an idiot and said I didn’t know how to sample properly. You accused me of trying to cater the sample towards a conclusion. Then I provided a quote directly out of the alphastar paper:
AlphaStar Supervised and AlphaStar Mid were evaluated starting from an unranked rating on Battle. net for 30 and 60 games, respectively, for each race; AlphaStar Final was evaluated from AlphaStar Mid’s rating for an additional 30 games for each race. The Battle. net matchmaking procedure selected maps and opponents. Matches were played under blind conditions: AlphaStar was not provided with the opponent’s identity, and played under an anonymous account. These conditions were selected to estimate AlphaStar’s strength under approximately stationary conditions, but do not directly measure its susceptibility to exploitation under repeated play.
You even asserted VEHEMENTLY that the paper disagreed with me:
AND accused me of not having read the paper:
This was one of the biggest intellectual face-plants I have ever witnessed.
<3 Glad to see your response is to go into denial.