Yea totally because 5 different Zergs didnt already get wiped in 30min Skytoss games at IEM already trying corruptor/viper the past few days…
Do zerg had upgrade lead in these games? Cause i dont see that games
Voidrays are cost efficient vs Corruptors, but they actually lose to them on equal supply unless charged, and corruptors can just leave.
Zerg also has more reliable anti-air support with Pbomb and fungal than Protoss gets with storm and have more control over when fights happen due to having generally faster units in their army.
You mean 2. Nice vs Armani game 3, and Zoun vs SoO game 2.
Those are the only skytoss games in the entire tournament so far, and in both of them, Protoss had a massive bank advanage when they got there because they’d been trading so efficiently through the earlier stages of the game, resulting in the Zerg running out of gas while Protoss still had plenty in the bank. The wins had very little to do with the relative strength of the units/armies. If the Protoss had lost in those games, that would have been a problem.
1 Like
And the cost efficiency came from not being able to engage tempests ever since the viper nerf, not the carriers.
Im definitely still here?
I mean, I might have been embarrassed on your behalf, but not enough to leave.
Actually, in both games, the Protoss cost efficiency at the stage when they had the full skytoss composition was even or worse with the Zerg until the Zerg was out of resources. The main advantage came from earlier in the game before the Zerg reached their full late game composition for combating skytoss.
1 Like
You can delete the zergs whole army with 3 clicks but we’re supposed to believe skytoss is less efficient even though the statistics clearly say otherwise? The carrier trades at an efficiency of 1.45, the tempest at 2.16, the void ray at 1.6, the disruptor at 1.63, the high templar at 1.21. Protoss trades at higher efficiencies despite 1) lower average army value and 2) lower average army supply.
If you play zerg then i don’t think pure corruptors is a way to kill carriers. I think hydra + microbial shroud would be better since interceptors now die quicker - but that’s just my opinion i don’t play zerg but at least i would try it.
And that is absolutely fine ! Protoss/Terran units are always supposed to trade at a higher efficiency than zerg. You can’t expect zerg units beating terran/protoss armies in a straight up engagement while having remax - that would be completely imbalanced.
1 Like
Right. You got owned so pathetically that you decided to question what “difficulty” even means, lol.
This is so ironic.
Pretty reasonable take tbh. But that’s true of TVP also.
No matter what you say it still doenst change the fact that your arguments are meaningless because race selection is not random and drawing conclusions out of activity/average mmr or whatnot is just nuts.
Get better arguments and dont squawk like a pigeon.
Right. Of over 100.000 players, all the players who practice more, but are just “less good” happen to be Terran. Why? Because that makes you feel better.
Again, maybe you understand it this time, race selection is not random. And because its not random these simple things like “hey look at average mmr” just dont work. The situation is not “in a vacuum”. Its not in a controlled environment.
So yes, it does not matter what you say about those 100 000 players. You care only about feelings. But you dont care about facts.
Again, what’s your evidence that the people who picked Terran are somehow less skilled, in spite of additional practice? I’m gonna guess you don’t actually have any.
I gave you some hints but actually i dont need to have any evidence about that topic.
Its simply sufficient to prove your initial wrong. Because race selection is not random you cannot draw wild conclusions about how hard or easy a race is because of average mmr or whatnot. Which funnily would mean that zerg is the easiest race by faaaaar. And thats not true.
You fail to bring up any point of value. Thats sad actually.
When you make up a definition for “less skilled” the evidence really doesnt matter. You werent reaching the conclusion from data in the first place, why should more data affect it?
A normal person looks at a bronze player failing to get results and thinks “What theyre doing isnt working.” You, apparently, think “ignore all the other data, imbalance!”
The idea that the overwhelming majority of people who practice a skill achieving less at it defines that skill as “difficult” is somehow controversial?
See this is why I miss when Batz would actually make good arguments. He was never right, but he was at least interesting. These kids are like Ostriches. Literally looking directly in the face of irrefutable evidence and sticking their braindead heads in the sand.
Hydralisks don’t have the DPS to kill Interceptors effectively, and Interceptors do not die any faster. Interceptors only have lower priority.
Microbial Shroud + Hydralisks is extremely durable against Carriers, so they could effectively kill the carriers if they get close, but since Hydralisks are squishy you also have to worry about splash. Weird tactics like sending other ground units up first under shroud to kill the splash (before following up with the Hydralisks) “may” yield better results. Abducting individual Carriers should also be effective, provided you can do it without getting feedbacked first.
Do you mean mech and bio? Because protoss always plays ground army in PvT.