I said a 50% reduction of the number of infestors is a greater than 50% reduction in strength. I did not say that a one supply increase is a 50% reduction in the number of infestors - you added that. It was simply an arbitrary number picked to illustrate the strength of the unit does not scale linearly. Work on your reading comprehension. They teach this sort of thing in second or third grade.
2 Likes
Jesus christ just admit you misspoke its not a big deal lol. Yeah, 3 is 50% larger than 2, but 2 is also 66.6% of 3, which would be 33.3% less. So 33.3% less infestors when their supply cost goes up by 50%
2 Likes
Which is a 50% or greater reduction in strength as I stated due to how strength scales logistically instead of linearly.
Three things here:
A) if it weren’t a big deal there wouldn’t be a need to admit it so you are employing double standards.
B) I am not going to admit to something I didn’t do, no matter how much the trolls attempt to bully. It is a fact that I did not equate a 1 supply increase to a 50% reduction in the number of infestors. I challenge you to find even a single quote where I say a 1 supply increase is a 50% decrease in the number of infestors (it doesn’t exist!). At the most they could claim that I implied it. I would agree that the number I choose to illustrate the concept was unfortunate because it allowed for this troll attack by making my position ambiguous and allowing my statement to have an alternate meaning.
C) Clarification to the ambiguity of my statement shouldn’t be construed as “attempting to avoid having made a mistake” as I have already admitted the mistake (making an ambiguous statement) and have fixed it (clarifying what the statement meant).
33% reduction, but that said, I don’t think they should ignore armor. Maybe a compensatory buff of some kind?
And OP, they literally JUST got nerfed. Could you try giving it a second?
1 Like
No, a 33% reduction in the number of Infestors is not a 50% decrease in strength.
That claim would still be wrong even if a unit scaled exponentially (which it does not), since the difference would only match or exceed 50% at specific supply counts.
You are simply making unsupported claims to justify your mistake after the fact, because you don’t have the integrity to admit when anything you say is wrong.
2 Likes
It absolutely is and I suggest you look up the properties of the logistic curve if you disagree. Zerg is barely winning hour long games by the skin of their teeth using the current infestors and have a roughly 50% winrate. That means with the current number of infestors the zerg is at 0,0 on the logistic curve where 1 is a win and -1 is a loss. Reduce the number of investors by 33% and you will see a radical drop off the tale of the bottom left quadrant on the logistic curve. This is due to the fact that the strength of the infestor in a battle scales according to the logistic curve and each battle accumulates repeatedly on top of that. It is the accumulation of multiple battles that ultimately add up to a victory. You are reducing their ability to perform drastically in a given battle on top of even more drastically reducing the accumulative effect that they are so clearly dependent on in order to function. Systems like these are hyper-sensitive to their inputs which means a 50% reduction in strength is a conservative estimate. In all likelihood the strength would be reduced by 95%+.
Once again, you have provided absolutely no evidence that Infestors actually scale logistically, nor have you provided any evidence that Infestors would scale that way severely enough that a 50% supply increase (33% reduction in the possible number of Infestors) would equal a 50% power decrease.
If Infestors do actually scale logistically, then there is a drop-off point where adding additional Infestors provides a relatively smaller benefit. Depending on where that exact point is and how many Infestors are actually made during most games, that 50% supply increase (33% reduction to the possible number of Infestors) could actually be much smaller than even a 33% nerf to the Infestors strength.
2 Likes
You need to read about the properties of the logistic curve as I have stated already. The strength of all units in Starcraft 2 scale according to the logistic curve. For example, having 20 Marines instead of 10 Marines doubles the amount of Health that the Army has but it also doubles the risk of dying to Splash damage for free. At what point in time does it become more important to reduce your number of Marines to reduce Splash damage than it is to increase the amount of Health in your army by having more units? The logistical curve models exponential growth with an upper and lower limit. Marines do scale in strength exponentially but the strength of Splash scales exponentially with the number of Marines as well and that puts an upper limit on how many marines you can make. That is a logistic curve.
It does not “double the risk” of dying to splash damage for free.
In practice, even though the number of Marines that can be hit increases (up to a point based on the area of the splash attacks, formation of the Marines, and where the splash hits), this is rarely as severe as the difference in the number of units present in practice. Air units are a slight exception when they stack because they can stack without limits, but even those will spread out naturally given enough time; so splash does get weaker if they survive it initially.
Never. You don’t simply reduce the supply of units that you have because the enemy has splash damage, which is what your argument unintentionally suggests.
You may change tactics by splitting more, and you may add other units to help deal with the splash damage threat (as you would against any unit that a portion of your army is inefficient against); but you do not simply drop supply.
There are other factors you are ignoring (collision size, overkill, range, positioning, enemy composition, etc) that limit every ground unit’s power to scale in larger groups. Those factors are always in play even when the opponent has no splash damage, and they are the factors that force you to mix up your army (add air units or longer ranged units that can keep stacking, add counter units, etc).
Marines do not scale exponentially the way you are describing. They have a cutoff point (one that varies wildly based on terrain and other factors) even without splash.
In any case, your claim that a 33% reduction in the number of Infestors is a 50% power decrease is wrong almost no matter how you look at it.
XD
By your logic there is no such thing as counters and no need to adapt your unit comp when an opponents army counters yours. It’s impossible to have a conversation with you when what you are saying is radically detached from reality.
The more marines that you make the more likely the opponent is to make more units that counter Marines and that reduces the efficiency of the marine and puts a cap on how many marines you are supposed to make - above a certain threshold, the Marines are wasted Supply. That is a fact. Given this, it’s clear that the population of Marines behaves according to the logistic curve. This isn’t up for debate. I am trying to get you to agree that 2+2=4. We can’t discuss the higher-level concepts until you can master these concepts.
The bug fix is a bug fix. That should stand. Im talking about the attack speed nerf.
No, you are simply mischaracterizing what I said.
In any case, your claim that a 33% reduction in the number of Infestors is a 50% power decrease is still wrong, no matter how you look at it.
The attack speed nerf is light.
The attack speed nerf (+20% cooldown, 1/1.2 *100% = 83.3333% firing rate) works out to a 16.6666% nerf on its own; and Infested Terran remain Zerg’s strongest anti-air unit by far despite that.
For reference, an Infested Terran after the nerf has close to the same DPS as a stimmed Marine (16% less if the target has no base armor, 6.7% less if the target has 1 base armor, the Infested Terran gains the advantage if the target has 2 or more base armor or is up on armor upgrades by that amount); and you can get up to 4x more of them, albeit for a limited time.
Nope. That is the logical consequence of what you said. If there are counters to units, then the units strengths scale according to the logistic curve.
Yeah its light. But if your nerfing Everything else about the infestor too, thats just not fair.
1 Like
Games shouldn’t be balanced around fairness (buff this because you nerfed that, yada yada), they should be balanced as needed to ensure reasonable win-rates and reasonable requirements on the player.
Infested Terran are a case where yes, you could nerf them a lot more than planned and they would still remain a very strong anti-air counter.
Even if MyOhMind’s 1 supply increase was paired with the Infested Terran nerfs (which it is very unlikely that a 1 supply increase would ever go through), Infested Terran would still remain one of the strongest sources of anti-air in the game.
You know after giving tehbatz the business for just saying that units scale logistically and asking you to trust his reasoning, I kinda thought that you would maybe not do the exact same thing yourself. Maybe ITs would be fine maybe they wouldnt but I’m not taking your word for it any time soon.
tehBatz made a number of unfounded claims, such as a claim that Infestors would become 50% worse if you increased their supply to 3.
Nothing he said actually supported that claim.
Mathematically, yes Infestors would be fine. Marines are often considered one of the best anti-air units; and even if you did nerf Infested Terran 75% instead of the nerfs they are receiving now they would still be stronger than Marines in practice, even if only because you can make 4 or 2.66 times as many.
You don’t have to take my word for that, you can just run the numbers yourself.
I wasnt defending batz lol what are you rambling about
My point is that tehBatz brought up the logistic curve as an excuse to defend his claim without actually going into the nuanced details needed to prove it.
Just like how Republicans use the idea of the Laffer curve to claim that tax cuts won’t reduce revenue. They’ve never had any interest in doing the work to determine where the tax rates would actually have to start and end for the theory to hold, and every single time they have reduced tax rates it has in fact reduced revenue.