Debatable. Proxy rax can be hella fast and are actually the only proxy strat that can be seen in pro play regulary.
But i dont know what this argument has to do with the early game attacks. Because all things mentioned are early game attacks.
And please dont respond with “yeaaaah buuuuuut cannon rush is op”. Jesus. Just stop it.
I won’t. Protoss and Zerg cannot be beaten for early game aggression. They can have more impact earlier on, which is extremely important.
This is correct.
This is not.
The race with the best possible early game potential is obviously zerg. Since the other races are dependant on walls or heavy defensive structures to be able to survive, while zerg gets a third and you cannot do anything about it. But its balanced around that fact.
However luckily the balance and the match is not decided by the first 3 minutes. And from there on terran got plenty of stuff to pull off. The most out of all races. Which is ok, because its the aggressive race.
Protoss is actually worse than Zerg. Both Cannons and Proxy Zealots are incredibly strong.
Alot is decided in the first 3 minutes actually. It decides your expansions. Very important for high ladder play.
Correct. Protoss is worse than zerg 
Glad you agree.
That is a very weird argumentation.
First of all if you say something about expansions and macro (?) why would you throw out cannons and proxy zealots? If you go proxy zealot this is like 99% all in. If it fails there is no real coming back. You need to get a loooot of damage done. Its not just a bit of pressure. Nearly same thing can be said about cannons. If you build cannons you will invest a lot in it and need to get something done while you delay your own expansion. But its true you can use it more to harass unlike proxy zealot.
Secondly: if its about macro then im afraid zerg is the only race that can get 6 zerglings across the map while expanding before the toss has a zealot out without using chrono. And you can go easily 3rd behind that while protoss needs to figure out if an all in is coming or not.
So yeah basically what you thereby assess is that zerg has the best early game of all 3 races. Which is pretty much a known fact since they dont rely on scouting early game (with workers) while also going 3 base almost no matter what.
Thank you for agreeing.
The big thing for Protoss is Chrono. On 2 bases they can power up extremely quickly, and since they aren’t sacrificing workers for buildings, they have many possible tech options.
I thought the big thing for protoss is cannons.
Im confused. You arent making a lot of sense.
Thank you for agreeing anyways.
Well, Protoss has alot of ‘big’ things, hence why they are the largest population in GM ;).
Ah thats why they also win all the tournies.
Yep, maybe Zerg is objectively stronger, but it’s not a very ‘fun’ style to play. You just have to macro really hard.
Wasn’t addressing you.
But you in fact did Not Adress me. Lol. You adressed eliwan.
But anyways. You are the one believing in total nonsense without evidence. Like for example terran is Harder based on AVG mmr. To this day you have 0 Arguments that makes Sense that you can imply that by avg mmr.
Well that is debatable. Many famous scientists, inventors succeeded because they did exactly the same thing as others but they added some tweaks or modifications. Basically that’s how progress or improvement works - you take ready solution and you add your own details that make the solution better. Same is with algorithms - almost every algorithm has strong potential for optimization but there is no need to invent wheel from scratch, instead take existing algorithm and make it faster - good example would be sorting algorithms. Currently the fastest known algorithm is quick sort which has time complexitity O(n*log(n)) - but it has weakness - it can be very slow when you apply certain collections or take pivot point which is far away from mean value. Slower, non recursive algorithms do not suffer from this - so you can make "hybrid algorithm - range of numbers is large - use quicksort, if range is small (less than 100 numbers) use insertion/selection algorithm - that’s just example. You get the point.
You sound as if you wanted to shock the world with some ground breaking algorithm that will change the computer science industry, but you do realize that there are people on this planet who are far better programmers and mathematicians than you and chances are if there is some efficient algorithm for 3d pathfinding it is already implemented and used in some video games.
I’m sorry dude, but i will believe you are 5.5k only if you reinstall the game and take any of these two accounts (slammer or bowlcut) and get to 5.5k (even offstream). Call me stubborn but that’s how i am.
first everything is removed from early to late game, reason: ultra late from zerg is strong.
Then they remove the ultra late game from zerg, but give nothing back. and zerg has nothing.
Say you are currently playing fast hive and solid ecco for min ~10min. you have to survive T/P push/ harass and then finish the game fast enough before T/P reach late game.
Say that again, only slower.
Sometimes it’s an incremental improvement to an existing solution, but other times it’s a whole new solution to an existing problem, or a whole new problem entirely. For the harder problems, people won’t even realize there is a problem – they think their system is operating at near the theoretical maximum efficiency, but it’s not. The problems that can’t be identified as problems are the toughest of all to solve because you don’t even know they are there.
It depends. There has to be a cognizable benefit to doing it. Educational for example or adapting it to work for a specific application.
Wrong again. I am scared to death to even talk about these ideas. That’s where people in academia and I differ greatly. They want rapport, tenure, recognition. They want to build a reputation as a contributor to the scientific knowledge of mankind. That’s great except a lot of these people realize that, while they did technically figure out something new, their invention is utterly useless & they are doomed to poverty working McDonalds wages for the rest of their lives. That’s the harsh reality. Some of them might be lucky enough to sit in a run down office building, with a leaky roof, building models & writing white papers for $40k a year on a budget laptop. What they fail to realize is that they needed to be focused on making money. They needed to identify and fix a cognizable issue in society in such a way that is possible to turn a profit. And that my friend is a trillion times harder than a PhD thesis. In the real world you aren’t dealing with a chalk board, you are dealing with a free market. You’re not dealing with static variables, but intelligent opponents seeking your financial ruin at every waking second. I don’t want to change the world. I want to make money, and by consequence I actually will change the world. Every time you make a sell you’ve improved the world. Sold a product yesterday. 700 bucks. The guy was ecstatic to have it. I’ve accomplished more in that one sale towards making humanity better than most people ever will with their PhD thesis. That’s brutal, but it’s realistic. Most doctorates spend thousands of hours & dollars on their thesis – it’s net negative to accomplish nothing at the end of the day. Sure, some of them do do something useful. But 80%+ won’t do anything except waste society’s resources.
How many tens of thousands of dollars are spent educating people towards useless ends? That’s the student debt crisis in a nutshell. A tremendous misallocation of society’s resources. Want to fix a problem? There’s a problem right there. ChatGPT will fix that one, by the way, with AI tutoring. You will will just log in and ChatGPT is your personal teacher. Computer scientists are in the process of solving the student debt crisis. Amazing.
I don’t like talking about my ideas because it makes people aware there is a problem to be solved & gives them a starting point at solving it. It is immensely stupid for me to even talk about this. To say I am doing it for the glory of changing the world is a tremendous miscalculation. I am more comfortable talking about it now than ever because I have a 10 year head start on people. So even if someone browsing bnet (of all places LOL) were to copy my ideas they wouldn’t be able to catch up to me. Ideas are cheap but implementations are expensive and while there may be geniuses out there who could, in theory, do better than I do, I have one advantage: speed.
So anyway when you say “wHat are YoU GoIng to DO wIth THat! tHaT’s USELess! THiS prOBLem HAS alREady BeEn SolvEd! Don’T YoU KNOW THEre Are peOplE WHo ARE SmaRTEr THaN YOu who HAVe aLrEaDY fIGUReD thiS OUt!” I am just sitting here giggling because you haven’t even identified the problem yet. Case in point. I am sitting here pointing at it and you’re still like “Huh? There ain’t no problem to solve here!”. 
The problem is that after seeing a long assortment of video clips, replays and screenshots, you’ve proven that literally nothing will change your opinion. That means your demands are futile because I know, without any doubt, even if I were to comply with your demands you would still deny it. So why waste the time. It’s called strategy, my friend. If you want to see someone’s in game rank, just nicely ask next time. Let’s practice. “Hi my name is XXX and I am really interested in your playstyle. Just how high did you manage to make it on the ladder with these strats? Wow, that’s amazing. Thanks for taking time out of your day to answer my question.” You can do it, abs. I believe in you!
Actually, I think avg mmr is a decent way to gauge the races strength. When there’s so many players, it rules out some bias. I don’t think “terran is the starter race” is a good argument in a 10+ year old game.
The data lists active players, so it’s not people with buried accounts. It should be shocking that Terrans are overwhelmingly bronze/silver, and Protoss owns GM. I personally don’t think tournaments are the best way to balance the game, because Blizz would be relying on players asking for money to compete. Ladder is important, because that’s your main playerbase.
Also, I think Zerg is generally strong for the casual player, due to their highest avg mmr. Protoss aren’t far behind.
This is one Part of the Argumentation. The other Part is that terran is more likely getting picked by Casual Players because of familiarity. It makes Sense because terran is by far the Most popular Race. This is a bias that cant be denied.
And ladder is healthy for the active Players that are Not Casual. Meaning for Gold and above. There we have equal representation of all races.
Actually protoss is far behind in those Terms.
And this is where the Argumentation bites the butt:
People Claim that protoss is so easy and If you would Argue that AVG means Something Like easier or Harder, it actually means protoss is NOT the easiest Race. And it would be zerg 
and thats Something the Community would never ever ever agree on. Like you know Proxy Gate and Cannon Rush, huh ? 
Yes, that’s true.
I think Proxy Gate and Cannon Rush are a bit controversial, because alot of people don’t really want to do them. It’s looked down upon by the community.
By the way, that’s why I roll my eyes when they say the Riemann hypothesis is the hardest unsolved problem in mathematics. The problems that we aren’t even aware of yet are quite literally impossible to solve because their properties make them hard to find. If you can’t find them, you can’t solve them. There are undoubtedly loads of these in computational biology. The cancer problem is probably a downstream manifestation of one of these issues, and even it technically doesn’t fall into this class because we are aware of it.
Another one is the Goldbach’s conjecture. I suspect that it, like the Riemann hypothesis, is unprovable. It has all the tenants. Any time you’d have to perform an infinite spatial search you’re dealing with an unsolvable problem. Basically we don’t know of a way to prove it for all numbers except to check every possible number. There are an infinite number of numbers. So what people really ought to be doing is finding a way to prove it’s solvable before even considering to look for the solution. Anytime you are dealing with a proof through contradiction, it’s tough. It’s like trying to prove all ducks are the same color. No matter how many times you perform the experiment & find the same color of duck, it doesn’t prove the conjecture.
Lawyers love to use this to their advantage, by the way. That’s why it’s incredibly hard to prove intent. There are so many possible explanations for why someone might do something and each one would have to be independently falsified. No matter how many explanations you prove, there is always another possible explanation for why they did what they did. So intent is incredibly hard to prove. You can’t pry open their brain and see what they were thinking. It’s a lack of the ability to perform some test that says “true” or “false” this person had “X” intent. That’s literally the same exact issue at play with the Goldbach conjecture. There is no universal test for numbers as a whole, you have to test each individual number and it’s impossible because there are an infinite number of numbers.
Dude you’d literally post a metric, I’d analyze it, then explain to you how it actually proves the opposite of your theory, then you’d just immediately discard the validity of the metric. If that’s not delusional, what on earth is?