Iâm sorry, what?
Just send enough that two Banelings in, or one Baneling and two Zerglings, if itâs that big of an issue.
The point was to remove the worst feeling, when you just lose but it takes 5 more minutes for the loss to actually happen, and from my understanding it would not be about professional playersâ feelings on this moment (because, as stated repeatedly, it is clearly something that is answerable and therefore any professional player should be able to answer it because thatâs why theyâre on the stage)
Like, even professional Zergs have said they donât mind this, because that was far from - as you argue - the âprimaryâ purpose of the Baneling. Against most army units, the difference between 35 (+2) and 35 (+4) is fairly minimal. Like, +1 attack against +0 or +1 Zealots, since that went from 4 hits to 5 hits.
After that weâre looking at some pretty messy situations, like +3 attack against +2 Marines, Hellions, or Mines; and +3 attack against +1 Hellbats?
At anything resembling a high level, yep. This is exactly what it is.
No good player playing to win can only survive with macro because efficacy of most units grows hugely as they are controlled.
No, I agree with you - thatâs absolutely correct. Warp Gate is hugely powerful for what it means for the production cycles and how it creates a very unfair difference in what adding more production than you can support does for your game state.
What I meant is that to me specifically, user typing this post, juggling methods of producing units is very hard to do with precision. Itâs easy to build âa lot of Zealotsâ (hold Z), but itâs not as easy to combine building something like four Sentries four Templar four Zealots with starting Disruptors or Colossi.
âBuild twelve Zealots four chronoâd Carriersâ is easier than âBuild eight Marines four Marauders four Medivacsâ. Thereâs just as many things to remember there for each.
I as an individual just find that, as the army has more types of units to replenish, that itâs easiest with Zerg, then Terran, then Protoss - Just larva except for Banelings, Lurkers, and Brood Lords is easy enough; having to remember to press tech lab units first for each production structure if youâre queuing up >1 unit and tabbing between three structures; and then finally having to switch your view window for both using chrono boost and for the warp-ins.
Of course, the overall macro I think Protoss is the easiest, then Terran, then Zerg; because injects are exceptionally difficult if youâre not using the trick, balancing the income vs the production is not easy, but Protoss building more Gateways has such a vanishingly small penalty.
A Bronze player is in Bronze because that is the level of skill they play at.
You have, in fact, repeatedly argued that Terran players play more; but more important is that you have argued that Terran players achieve less when playing, and one of the facts youâve used to back that claim is that their average rating is lower.
Which it is expressly because they possess a larger number of bad players.
No, all three races are of approximately equal difficulties. If you want to claim otherwise, you need significant evidence that backs up such a claim.
If we have groups of people divided by their city, and the average income is less than livable income for only one city, that doesnât mean that the other cities donât have massive problems.
It may mean they just have more millionaires whose numbers inflate that average income. It may mean that all of the countyâs citizens who have low earnings are all corralled to that one city.
If, when we divide each cityâs populations into two halves by the median or mode value, we find that their averages are now the same, that affirms that all three cities have the same problem within the low income populationâs living situation, even though only one cityâs total average wage looked problematic.
Please do not make me unpack how that analogy is a one-to-one match with this.
