False. Terran keeps up in economy despite being on lower base counts (thanks to the mule).
Also false. Terran expands slower but doesn’t have a slower economy. They have equal economy on lower bases which is an advantaged position.
Is this a joke? Terrans stop building production facilities shortly after landing their third. Zerg is building production facilities literally the entire game.
Medivac healing says hello.
LOL
This stuff is nuts. Terrans trade rediculously efficiently outside of critical mass (ex: drops).
LOL
ZERG DOESN’T EVEN HAVE ANY EARLY GAME HARASSMENT VS TERRAN
That’s false. I’ve debunked it above. Protoss have higher win-rates in equal-skill scenarios not just in the pro scene but in the GM/Masters leagues on the ladder.
My arguments haven’t shifted and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Again, claiming something is true without proof is proof you are wrong (because if it were true you’d have included proof). You are trying to assert a narrative while deliberately avoiding providing any evidence to back up your claims, and that means there is a 99% chance you are wrong.
Which has absolutely no relevance to the win-rates yet are are making an argument that it is. Lmao. Such incredible dishonesty.
But you didn’t have to check my history because I didn’t say anything unreasonable in this thread. I only asked questions about the data people are looking at.
He’s used to being harassed by PPP members (like Anesthetic for example) so it’s only natural in this place to assume someone is a troll from the get-go. Just look at the garbage Terranic is posting (110% he is a troll).
No, the Mules themselves are equivalent to a 2 worker boost (Mules are effectively equivalent to 3-4 workers after finishing the Orbital and cutting SCVs).
That is an inherently slower buildup than the Protoss or Zerg.
The incomes will only match after Terran player has fully saturated his/her bases (in which case the Mules allow additional income through oversaturation or damaged the Protoss/Zerg economies through harassment damage or by forcing them to cut worker production.
I see you explicitly cut out relevant information to attack strawmen again:
Add-ons, Terran’s production facilities have to stop production to build add-ons (another 25-50 seconds) in order to match the production output of an equivalent cost of Warpgates, Stargates, etc.
That’s a strawman. The original sentence that you quoted pointed out that Medivacs (near the end of the tech-tree) were needed. You dishonestly cut that out!
My statement was correct.
Marines cannot compete with Gateway units before reaching a critical mass (because of the way ranged scaling works) or obtaining Stimpacks. Hellions and Tanks suffer a similar problem.
Zerg’s early harassment is stopped by hiding behind walls and bunkers until the Terran player has enough units and upgrades to move out, but that’s not my argument nor relevant to it.
You were talking about representation in tournaments, and that is what the quoted section addressed.
Representation in tournaments is based on the population of players from each race who are skilled enough to qualify for those tournaments, and are willing to take the time to do so.
That underlying pool is affected by the overall distribution of players playing each race; so you should expect the race with the least players will have less players in those tournaments, not the same amount!
Ok, but the same logic applies: The percentage of a race that you should expect at a league is affected by the overall racial distribution, and if the game is balanced for a particular skill level on the ladder then you should expect the distribution of players at that league to be “close” to the racial distribution, not close to “33%”.
And the overall racial distribution should be roughly split unless the races are, by definition, asymmetrical. The probability that tens of thousands of people would pick Zerg the least is 0% unless there is something materially different about Zerg.
There is a wide variety of factors (aesthetics, familiarity, playstyle/unit preferences, etc) that go into selecting a race apart from balance, and you should expect racial distribution in any game to be skewed by those factors!
Since the racial distribution will be skewed, you should expect that skew to have some effect on representation at a particular skill level if the game is balanced for that skill level and the number of people at that skill level are simply a function of the overall players playing that race.
It’s not an assumption. If the races are purely symmetrical then it is entirely chance that decides who picks which race and the probability that, by chance, tens of thousands of people could select Zerg so few times is 0%.
Proving your point factually & mathematically != assumption.
That would apply if the races were purely symmetrical, but StarCraft is not and never has been a purely symmetrical franchise.
I should also clarify what purely symmetrical would have to mean in this case for your underlying assumption that race selection is purely an equal probability to actually hold:
All unit/faction names are the exact same or absent, so that preference for certain names cannot bias the factions that players select.
The factions cannot be denoted by numbers either, since a bias for “favorite numbers” will also affect the population.
All factions must have the same playstyle(s) and necessarily the same units with the same stats/mechanics; so that differences in playstyle preference or individual units cannot bias faction selection.
All factions have the same color schemes and unit designs so that those cannot become selection biases either.
Basically, the factions would have to be so alike that there would be no point in even creating them, since any distinguishing factor can and will bias player selection and lead to a non-random, non-uniform racial distribution.
Kid you literally just stated TWICE that they weren’t asymmetrical and now you are saying they are asymmetrical IN THE SAME POST? 110% chance you are a troll.
The troll here is none other than You. Maybe you have to take some time and study the scientific methodology. There you will see that assumptions are an important thing. Hypothesis are a set of assumptions that hope to explain something, next precise procedures are applied to judge the validity of the hypothesis…
Here, you asked a completely obvious questions because there is already a mountain of evidence/explanations provided to your question in his posts (explaining precisely about the data he is using). In fact if you bothered checking his post history, batz rehashed those explanations (on other threads) several times over. So either you asked that because you didn’t read or you are doing it to antagonize. And it is not at all unreasonable to assume you were doing the latter given this post you made earlier:
This posts either shows a serious lack of knowledge in statistics or ironically a serious lack of reading comphrension. You make these claims like “The games on Aligulac are between pros and literal gold league players, tournament winners is clown logic, and tournament winrates are way too small of a sample size.” right off of the quote that completely ignores what batz has explained to you by a direct quote from aligulac:
Also it is funny as none of your arguments resembles anything that anyone with knowledge in statistics would ever use or if they did, they would provide solid numbers and analysis to back it up which you haven’t. So yes, what you have posted against batz IS unreasonable if you had read his past analysis or read his explainations.
What a waste of time, I can’t believe I actually went and reread what you wrote again and thought I might have missed something.