That’s a great sentence. It has no evidence behind it, but a wonderful thought.
You mean like… the fact that they don’t play less or that they’re not “newer” players? Logic like that?
Nah, not at all. I just like to think about the points on both sides. I’ve done it for you and Kelthar and others as well, so…
Like I said, I don’t actually believe any one race is harder or easier than the other. They’re all hard and what suits any one person may not suit another. Different races are different and designed differently.
Okay, I misunderstood what you were referring to.
Part of that is also the absurd necessity of such a defense when you also have little to no defenders advantage with warp in and the crazy map crossing speed of creep. Unlike both Protoss and Zerg who can cross the map near instantly Terran don’t have that option so their defense needs to be strong enough to hold till the army gets back. But I see and understand your point and agree; it’s obviously not just protoss that has issues, but protoss arguably has the most glaring ones.
I get the hatred for mines. I really do, but given how much swarm there is from Zealot warp ins and Ling Bane in general they’re a necessity. That said I also understand the hatred of mine drops and feel that you could have them not target or do reduced damage to workers specifically. Terranic made a great suggestion a while back along those lines.
Ghosts are good at everything because Terran late-game is bad with every other lategame unit unless they’re enmass. Mech is extremely bad vs toss for so many reasons. BCs are generally garbage units unless they’re used super early or en mass and nothing in-between. Ravens as a caster were problematic before and had to be nerfed to the ground, so what other unit do we really have other than the ghost as that late-game unit to tech into?
1 Like
You mean Like 1 Argument per year is enough?
Care to answer To my questions? Scared?
I always answered your pretty meaningless and Bad questions
What question?
IF you want to convince me (or anyone else for that matter) that Terran players are somehow inferior, you need to back it up. You’re trying to start by assuming they are, then supposing that I’m supposed to prove otherwise, which is already backwards. But we did that.
First it was: Terran players are new.
Then it was: Terran players are casual, they play fewer gamer
THEN it was: Oh, Terran players playing more games doesn’t matter, those games are less intense and more casual (source: trust me, bro)
There are factors we haven’t explored yet. Maybe Terran players play a few more games (admittedly, not many), but they’re significantly shorter on average (pretty unlikely since 78% of games would contain a Terran).
Did you notice how quickly you went from praising Eliwan to now he’s some idiot with no idea what he’s talking about, now that he disagrees with you?
Yeah i think they are only annoying in Terms of worker damage. I dont think its Bad Design in active Army.
I mean yeah pretty much but some Things should actually be turned down. There is Not really a good reason why EMP should be Instant and also drain Like every Energy. That should be turned down and in Exchange WE could delete disruptors and buff colossi so we actually get to See some real Action again. Because right now either Side refuses to really enagage. Terran could lose instantly due to disruptors and protoss wont win a straight Fight against Ghosts.
Technically, it’s not. It actually has a travel time. Micro battle!
I get your point though.
1 Like
i did.
by calculating avg mmr for bottom 50%
i gave you an example and explanations why the method you are using are giving the false conception of terran being weaker:
I have not said hes an idiot. He is not viewing everything the same as i do but that doesnt make him an idiot. You however…
I think i havent used this in like 1 whole year 
You keep ignoring my arguments that i use right now. You just argue against my argument i made like 1 year ago.
So you do admit that you have been continuously moving the goal posts to support your initial conclusion?
I have admitted multiple times that we cannot draw the conclusion. I always said I SUSPECT SOMETHING. I always said IT CAN BE. I never stated something absolute. I argued why things can be the way they are but i never said they are that way because i said so
I think it’s subjective and there’s no way of knowing. Law of averages is such that roughly the same number of skilled players would pick each. If they were just skins and they looked good. I see no reason why looking good would be more popular amongst lesser skilled players.
You sure about that?
Exactly this is why we see a rather even distribution in higher leagues. Exactly what i am assuming. Exactly what we see.
But law of averages does not work for getting started with a new game when its design is so heavily influenced like in sc2.
And because of the population distribution we actually see that the law of averages doesnt work in sc2. However as stated above, we have a rather equal amount of skilled players after people actually invested time and energy into the game.
How is it subjective? How is one race being completly much much more popular subjective and no way of knowing that there is a bias? If race selection would be random you could say at that sample size maybe we have 32% 33% 34% but not that what we are seeing with 36% 26% and 29%.
This was an example…
If its reasonable or not is not the point (tho its pretty much correct that skins are more important to casuals than for high skilled / pro players but i dont really want to engage in this pretty obvious topic)
But as i have stated, this would actually mean that we would view a certain skin as being worse than others because of their distribution amongst the ladder…and this is the flaw i wanted to highlight to you for about couple of months now.
Also…you havent answered all questions. Just like 1, lol.
Now we actually have proof of exactly what we wanted: the data shows that terran is not doing better or worse when you look at bottom 50% of the players.
Its a much more solid argument than the speculation based on activity or seniority or whichever mental gymnastics…
I answered yours, now answer mine.
More popular is not subjective. More popular amongst the less skilled? How on earth could you know that?
They are not less skilled per se. There is a huge misinterpretation.
I am stating (and have demonstrated that) that there are more casual players for terran compared to the other races (the population is very high in lower league for terran but they do not worse than the other races; there are simply more terrans).
No one in the world should make a fuss about one group of the people who barely grasp anything about the game (and for the record: as i have stated and demonstrated: this is exactly why the terran mmr is on average lower than the other races. because of the population in lower leagues. i have said since the beginning of you using that argument that you basically say: all terrans perform worse because of the players in very low leagues)
Wow, you dodging again?
You mean you dodged my last response?
I didnt even see that post because it wasnt an answer to my post.
And no i do not move the goal post in fact a) you are doing that and b) i actually said i admitted multiple times that we cannot draw any conclusion out of the activity stat since there is no real deviation for any race or league.
you are the one constantly ignoring everything i say and go back to some lame old argument that has nothing to do with the point we are discussing right now.
You desperatly trying to avoid the avg mmr discussion (that has been the point at hand for several days/weeks now)
The response to the explanation why its misleading was:
like ???. your response has 0 content and is not adressing the point being made. you question if my example is 100% valid, which is not the important part of the explanation. however you dont adress the point being made. and the point is: even if those skins are 100% equal the distribution of the skins across the leagues would lead to the assumption that 1 skin is worse than the others only because it was getting picked much more often in lower leagues.
so…do you have any opposing views to the explanation or do you agree with this explanation? Because if you agree with the explanation there could be a massive flaw with your interpretation of the avg mmr across the 100% of the population.
Literally just stated that two of your old arguments i disproved and no you no longer use them… What do you call that?
This is the literal definition of goal posting…
A discussion.
I dont think that the defintion is: across a whole year use 2 or 3 different arguments in a discussion