100 stalkers vs 400 lings is infinitely easier if you understand how unit scaling works.
2 Likes
Sorry kid lying isnât a valid argument. Prove that you can lose the same number of resources in 1 stalker vs 4 lings as you do in 100 stalkers vs 400 lings. This conversation ends until you post a video proving your absurd claims.
Anyone with a brain knows they will lose far more resources in the later scenario.
when you have a higher unit count the effective HP pool is increased so the necesity of precise micro is lower, lets say if you have just two stalkers and and are fighting in a low unit count fight, the micro will be higher than if you are managing 100 stalkers, because all you will have to do is either boxing-blink away, or just jumping into the enemy/jumping away. With T is the same, you have few marines, you micro hard, you have more marines, you run away or do some kind of easy splits/concave.
Now you know why it is called rapid fire 
2 Likes
lol I can 1a both and say that the 100 stalkers is guaranteed to do better.
Trap is a patchToss noob
2 Likes
https://streamable.com/d97qec
1 stalker with micro = no stalkers lost and all lings killed
Stalkers vs lings = most stalkers die
Why? Controlling more stalkers = harder than controlling fewer stalkers.
Lying != valid argument. The majority of the difficulty in SC2 comes from the number of things you have to manage. Youâve already admitted Protoss has fewer things to manage and admitted they have lower skill metrics. Protoss is easier, period.
2 Likes
my point is that your paramaters does not indicate anything useful. I can 1a both and get a better outcome on the 100 and what does that prove?
YOU claimed that having fewer things to manage isnât easier / doesnât take less skill. That means you should be able to manage more things and get the same result as when you manage fewer. Thatâs absurd. You canât micro 100 stalkers and lose none of them vs 400 lings. Itâs impossible. It is possible to micro 1 stalker vs 4 lings and lose none. Thus your theory is falsified definitively.
More things to manage = harder.
Protoss has fewer things to manage = easier.
1 Like
and to your second point, no you did not prove that. There more dynamics than just micro such as matchups, production and economy. I can change the parameter from 1 collosus to x ling to 100 collosus to 100x lings. Guess what you show nothing new in the outcome.
And guess what? Macro is harder when you have to do more of it. Imagine how hard it would be to properly set up your base if you had to pack twice as many gateways in it.
You see, EVERYTHING in the game scales as a product of the numerosity of that item. More macro is harder than less macro. More micro is harder than less micro. More strategy is harder than less strategy.
I encourage you to post a video macroing on 7 bases vs 1 base. Again, your macro should be IDENTICAL in both scenarios if the difficulty doesnât scale with numerosity. Anyone with a brain knows itâs harder to macro on 7 bases than it is on 1 base. Only a liar would say otherwise.
The vast majority of the difficulty in SC2 comes from having to manage many things at once. Period.
1 Like
All I gotta say is that you need more experience at the game. You donât understand enough to make a coherant argument in what makes this game difficult. You look at parameters that do not really mean anything in a real game. How do you define harder? If you look at efficiency, then sure, but the objective of this game is to win not to be alphstar efficient. To win games, what you need is good tactics and a little bit of deception and knowledge of unit matchups. If apm was everything then winterâs 100 apm challenge would not be a thing.
1 Like
I am Grandmaster. Youâre diamond.
Your inability to understand basic concepts of the game != my inability to form a coherent argument.
It is an indisputable fact that more micro is harder than less micro, more macro is harder than less macro. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or extremely deluded.
1 Like
okay but why does it matter more than something like tactics?Why is it possible to get to gm with every race with 100apm?
2 Likes
Im mostly Zerg, but plenty of games played as Random⌠so dont judge me as Im a Terran. I just heard someone who said: Terran has more micro with structures, than Protoss with units
1 Like
THE DIFFICULTY OF THE TACTICS SCALES WITH HOW MANY TACTICS YOU HAVE TO DO. MORE TACTICS IS HARDER THAN LESS TACTICS.
This is not a hard concept.
1 Like
Yes but is it really so much harder when box select and rapid fire exists?
If I can select all my units and a move or shift click command then how much harder is it really?
Again, go into the unit tester and find out. This is not a problem I can solve for you. You have SEVERE misunderstandings of how the game works IN ITS VERY BASICS.
If microing more isnât harder, then you should be able to micro 100 stalkers vs 400 lings and lose ZERO like you would if you did 1 stalker vs 4 lings.
Anyone with a brain knows thatâs impossible. You will lose tons of stalkers, thus proving it is harder. See the video:
https://streamable.com/d97qec
1 Like
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000
Somehow I donât think that itâs a useful metric especially when the only outcome that matters is whether or not you win the fight and one scenario has a better outcome if I just 1a and focus my attention elsewhere.
Siding with clowns who donât understand how to form logical arguments is pretty bad even for you. This is a very basic circular reasoning fallacy.
Heâs admitted that strategy and tactics make the game hard while conveniently ignoring that the amount of strategy and tactics scales with the amount of things you have to manage, thus proving my point once again.
The strategy of defending 1 base is 3x less than the strategy of defending 3 base. And the same for EVERY aspect of the game, as I detailed here:
More stuff to manage = harder. Period.
3 Likes