Talk is cheap. You can say you have a degree in Chemistry all you like, but after you couldn’t answer a simple question and contradicted a basic Chemistry definition, nothing short of ID’ing you and comparing the name on your ID to your diploma will ever convince me. And even then I’d still be wondering if you had a rich dad who bought your diploma while you partied through college.
Me on the other hand, I was attending college when I was 10. I had the test scores at the age of 10 of the average 16-17 year old. My education never stopped. I eat, live and breath my research and can answer any question on the topic and give advice only an expert would know.
That’s how it’s easy as pie to download professional SC2 match histories, write a statistical algorithm to analyze them and regress the relative skill levels of the players, then a simulation to predict the outcome of tournaments with high accuracy knowing the seeding for those tournaments. My algorithm correctly predicted every advancement in the last GSL, for example.
What proof does “CrusaderKing” give other than botching the definitions of simple chemistry terms? Answer: none.
I’m not trying to convince you. I’m just stating facts.
You will never ever know as much chemistry as me, despite your “research”. You will never have worked in a real chemistry lab, have a degree, nor have a thesis or be published.
“Research” isn’t internet dwelling and reading about topics in totality, it’s living it.
The fact you think you can “research” on your own and think you know more than a chemistry graduate school student about chemistry is an absolute joke. Can you perform better medical physical exams than me too, despite never done one?
Also, I think you’re trolling at this point, so the discussion of you being a genius in all fields of life is so absurd it hardly warrants a response.
Kid, I properly knew the definition of “functional group” while you said I was wrong when I was simply quoting a dictionary. I had to link you to the definition before you stopped misusing it.
It’s absolutely hilarious that some kid can be outwitted by a layperson using a dictionary yet somehow rage about how he’s superior and how that person could never compete.
I’ve corrected you multiple times. In your amateur chemistry knowledge base, you think all molecules act the same because of a common functional group, which I had to correct you (methanol vs ethanol).
I didn’t say that, in fact I said something quite different. There you go contradicting the dictionary again:
In organic chemistry, a functional group is a specific group of atoms or bonds within a compound that is responsible for the characteristic chemical reactions of that compound. The same functional group will behave in a similar fashion, by undergoing similar reactions, regardless of the compound of which it is a part.
Keyword “similar”. You’re saying “you think all molecules act the same because of a common functional group”. Clearly you didn’t read the definition of the word I was providing, thus proving, once again, you’re not a chemist.
You didn’t know the definition. You contradicted it a bunch. You constantly demonstrate you don’t know the definition by saying I said something in contradiction to the definition when all I said was the definition.
Your trolling is so incredibly bad that even after being caught and called out, you STILL couldn’t bother to look up the definition to see if I was using it properly and kept saying I was using it improperly despite the fact that I quoted it verbatim.
Wrong. Batz asks CrusaderKing a very specific question - if HDPI reacts with basic fatty acids. I even gave an example of a similar compound that DOES react with these fatty acids to help poor CrusaderKing out since he struggles in chemistry.
LOL
Nope. You blatantly stated that they would not after I pressed you for an answer. I then pointed out they have the same functional groups. You then said that doesn’t mean they will react the same. I then linked you to the definition of “functional group” which means they will react similarly. You got the question wrong, you got the definition of “functional group” wrong.
Dude you’re just another nomufftotuff. He pretended to be a professor of statistics and use all sorts of big and fancy phrases that he copied/pasted from wikipedia. At one point in time he said that the sum of dependent bournouli variables is not hypergeometric, thus proving he was full of it. I half suspect you are him, just LARP’ing as a chemistry grad this time.
Pro tip: if you are going to LARP & troll a forum, you need to actually have AT LEAST a very basic understanding of the topic you are talking about.
But the strategical element has to be THE dominant aspect of the game. That’s definitely not the case in modern SC2. It emphasizes multitasking, clicking accuracy, reaction speed much more than strategy. That’s why Byun can do 1 factory siege tank in TvT even though it’s an objectively worse style, period. Having half the tanks of your opponent is just a horrible idea.
The problem is that SC2 outcomes are so bad that ANY management is better than no management, so if you are strong in multitasking you can drastically outperform someone with worse multitasking even if you aren’t properly managing things because mismanagement is much better than no management. So having good strategy and properly managing your units to actuate that strategy doesn’t matter when merely managing your units puts you at a drastic advantage over someone who doesn’t manage, regardless of how you actually do manage.
It doesn’t matter if you load marines into a medivac, stim backwards into tank fire, split, pull back the marines while body blocking with marauders - all these outcomes are better than forgetting about the bio and losing them all to some banelings. In a hectic, fast-paced game a person with superior multitasking & endurance will be less likely to not manage their units, and that’s enough to beat all their opponents regardless of other factors.
SC2 is an “EAM” game aka “Endurance and Multitasking”.
Not really, that’s why Potatoss with worse APM can do so much more… Are Potatoss players strategic?? Heck no just have cheesy units that do the skill for them. They only need to learn to sustain 3 bases or more, basically to spam workers, then nothing matters how good opponent is.
Most of them just camp… gather and camp, waiting to start making their blind A move composition of skytoss. Now with battery to help them … camp
And when terran’s job is to not let them there, they are worse for failing to beat protoss early and for being behind in macro and basically losing
You love the game. Else you wouldn’t post so much here. Posting here is the same as playing, it means you’re still thinking about the game.
Yes I did play other games, back in the glory days of PC when SC1 and Doom came out. I bought Doom Eternal a month or so ago. Haven’t even played it yet. My computer can’t run it, I assumed it would. You need pretty much a top of the line computer to play the new doom, but that’s the only other game that I play.
Nope, I despise it, which is why I enjoy trolling the SC2 normies so much. I’ve never seen a denser concentration of <80IQ individuals on the entire internet. Anyone who thinks it takes intelligence to play SC2 is incredibly wrong - it’s about APM spam and virtually nothing else.
I can create a thread claiming that SC2 increases your IQ, while linking to a research paper that says it decreases IQ, quoting the paragraph where they say so, and not a single person will notice the contradiction but dozens will pour into the thread to comment or flame. That’s how incredibly low IQ these forums are. They can’t even read. I can talk about all this and nobody will notice or comprehend it for the same reason. My cover isn’t blown because you have to be able to read and comprehend this post, which they can not.
Well, I guess this is true, ever since you came here, at least.
Bit brave of you to come out and say you only scored 80 in the IQ tests, but at least you own it!
Dont you see that people are laughing at you?,you are not trolling anyone.Why do you think people don’t read your links?,because you have no credibility and people are funposting instead of having actual discussions.
Normies are people that don’t play SC2. Moron. Normies play the MOBA games that you slinked off to. And no, they are not RTS. They are MOBA’s. You learned something today.
You can play the previous 3/4 Dooms (in case you didn’t play them yet) until you play the latest,they are nice and the first three can run on a toaster.
Doom storyline is much simpler than the Starcraft saga, still up to this moment two full movies are based on Doom.
If Starcraft could be made into a movie i guess a “Lord of the Ring” thing would be brought to life.
Doom 3 was good I think, but maybe it wasn’t what people expected, some fast fps with tons of enemies in each room, D3 was more of a scary/horror style game, I read somewhere that they made the game like that because the original idea for doom was something like that and not something like what happened with the first two ones, so I wouldn’t say it was bad, it was just different.When they made the next one , they embraced what people wanted, speed,gore, tons of demons and tons of shots.
Doom history is basically ‘‘agry dude vs demons’’. What was the other movies based on Doom?, the first one I guess it’s the Doom one with Karl Urban and the Rock, but the another one?, I liked the Doom movie ( I find hard to dislike movies and even I like some bad movies more than the good ones), it was more or less like game 3, maybe that why it wasn’t really liked, but that ‘‘doom scene’’ that totally felt out of place was awesome.
