Id also like to note that your analysis of proportion of players in GM and masters is grossly flawed - the difference between the races is not statistically significant (Z: 0.25%, P:0.32%, T:0.23%). The reason teran players make up the lower ranks is because the game teaches to play teran artifically increasing the teran base reducing the proportion in other leagues. There is a huge chance many people play ranked on terran quit but theyre included in the teran base.
So if he frequently loses to Showtime and other toss why arent the other toss above him in MMR ?
Terran doesnât counter all toss units, at the pro scene level terran wins by multitasking perfectly in the form of multi prong attacks , splits , micros. Defending multiprongs are a weakness of toss at the upper level when it demands perfetion
He loses to them in PvP when they play in tournaments and he isnt above them in MMR at the moment either so your point is really moote.
Terrans best variant is bio, archons are protossâs best counter to bio, ghosts remove all shield and can instantly kill them.
Defending on terran is auto pilot - siege tanks solve any assult from the front and then youre just playing the same defence EVERY OTHER RACE DOES
stop pretending terran requires perfection when the most vulnerable race on defense is ALWAYS zerg without the ability to wall off. Losing workers on teran doesnt really matter in the mid to late game cuse you can just mule immediately.
It sounds like you are hardstuck and copingâŚ
1 Like
Is it moote ? Whatâs showtime and the other terran MMR comparatively ? Is it close to Clemâs terran or toss mmr at all ? Probably not , likely your brainâs existence is moote
terran does require perfection. miss a split against incoming banes, disruptors, colossus? army gone
Didnât multi prong harass (effectively) before the 11 minute mark ? great - now your opponent is free mining and reached terminal velocity gg
Terran is always on the back foot initially, do you know why the game requires terran to harass ? their eco is behind and they need to even the playing field. Mules become beneficial after the 3rd cc mark , before that they are playing catch up. Only after this mark and in late game does mules become a surplus
The skill requirement to play terran effectively is so much more demanding because terran cannot win with death balls. You need to split/micro and multi prong. A move isnât an option. so pipe down child. Sounds like you know nothing about this game
3 Likes
too true, and thanks to the new maps a tank can def 3 different bases.
lol
according to SC pulse, 51.02% GM are protoss in EU server
2 Likes
A youtuber casted a GM level cannon rush game a week ago. The protoss cannon rushes & zerg is contained on 1 base. Itâs an unlosable position if the toss simply goes stargate & expands (because zerg has 1x hatchery producing queens).
Instead, protoss goes stalkers/blink and never expands. Zerg turtles in his main until he gets a nydus. It takes 9 minutes to afford the nydus. Toss never thinks to make a single zealot at home & patrol it. He scouts the nydus with an adept. He has vision of the nydus in his main base. He still lets the nydus get up & throws the game.
This protoss is 5800 mmr. He doesnât watch the minimap. He doesnât have any situational awareness to infer what is happening in the fog of war. He doesnât scout & adapt. He literally isnât playing Starcraft â heâs ignoring 2/3rds of the game and still punching to insane heights none the less.
Nerf protoss. A player of this skill level could not get above 4k mmr with terran or zerg. Balance is an absolute joke.
To be clear, I love cannon rushers. I loved playing vs PartinGâs cannon rush, for example, but thatâs because he was really good & deserved his mmr. His builds were insanely precise & his followups were super clever. Average GM toss by comparison donât even know what the minimap even is. The skill floor for protoss is at the bottom of the ocean â you could reach in, pull out a fish, let it flop around on the keyboard, and it would get GM.
1 Like
It remains u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-y easy to win ZvZ vs 5500 players:
https://i.imgur.com/GdmJXrK.mp4
Still waiting on a method to beat a 5100 protoss by comparison (that doesnât rely on out of game factors like superior multitasking).
https://i.imgur.com/xanzJP0.png
How to be insta blocked:
- Leave the game immediately.
- Tell the protoss to enjoy their next pvp.
You lose like 2 mmr by doing this meanwhile they have to sit in the queue for another 5 minutes. Totally worth it. Only W that zerg can score right now vs protoss is to make the protoss play the one matchup they hate. Protoss are not entitled to your time.
https://i.imgur.com/EfV6U6I.mp4
Toss, man. They donât know how to manage the early game, at all, but magically have unstoppable mid and late game. 4900 mmr top 100 gm messes up the scouting of early game zvp. 
Could you imagine a zerg not bothing to scout cannon rushes & proxy gates and yet being in gm? Not a chance of that happening.
1 Like
https://i.imgur.com/Ajjzith.png
Itâs a surprisingly effective strategy. Why is it that everyone hates playing against protoss â even protoss themselves? Protoss is imba vs terran and zerg, no wonder why they hate to face vs protoss, and in pvp protoss have no advantage so the matchup feels super hard.
Itâs so ironic that even being buffed to the moon they still canât win tournaments because PvP becomes the dominant factor in deciding who makes it to the semis/finals, meaning the best PvT and PvZ players arenât being selected for which makes them lose tournaments. You canât force toss to win premiers by buffing them to jupiter because there is a skill issue and pvp will always highlight it.
By contrast here is what happens when a toss proxy gates a 4900 zerg:
https://i.imgur.com/XsatWpK.png
Zerg scouts it at 1:09 & itâs an easy win at 4:43:
https://i.imgur.com/5IE9IOD.jpeg
You can see the difference in effort because a zerg has to squeeze every win out from the early game with pinpoint precise counters, meanwhile GM toss are like 
whatever, I lost, mmr is free so what do I care. No need to learn the early game when I can just spam carriers for free wins.
https://i.imgur.com/TIGSgsl.png
â
WE REFUSE TO LEARN THE EARLY GAME! â
1 Like
No reason. OP will continue to play.
MindSpirit is the same way, actually. No matter how much complaints and âI quitâ âWhy botherâ threads, theyâll continue.
Doesnât make sense to me, but it is what it is.
1 Like
Uh, no. I told my discord I wouldnât be streaming until these issues are fixed. Went from streaming with 80 average viewers once every other day to once every 4 weeks. And thatâs not an exaggeration either. SC2 is dead until these issues are fixed and itâs not worth investing any time into building a community around it, because that community will shrink rather than grow and your investment would be wasted. SC2âs category on twitch loses 3 average viewers per day which gives it 1.5 years before reaching 0. This game is on life support and the end is just around the corner.
I give advice to the balance counsel in threads like this, being an game developer myself, knowing they are too arrogant to take the advice, knowing nothing I say will change the outcome, knowing the game is doomed. Itâs more to mock them than anything. Itâs kinda like shouting the answers to some kids taking math tests and watching them fail anyway. Itâs truly a sight to behold â a clown show of epic proportions.
Anytime I do stream, my viewers are begging for advice on how to deal with protoss in general and ghosts. They have no clue how to win late game with the brood range nerf. I give them pointers knowing they wonât work, because the only way to win in modern SC2 is to play drastically faster than the protoss. You need 9% better spending, 13% higher APM, and 30% more screen movements to achieve the same rank â you need all that just to be equal. Zerg is so far behind by default that you have to pray your opponent is substantially worse at spending their money, and you require that to be able to win fights. You literally rely on it. The crazy thing is that protoss are so bad at the game that you can rely on it: ~1/3rd of GM level protoss are actually diamond league in skill.
This issue doesnât affect only Zerg. Protoss themselves are getting fed up with PvPvPvPvPvPvPvPvPvPvP all day long. Because nobody wantâs to play vs protoss, so only protoss are laddering. Everyone else is playing other games until the balance patch hits. SuperNova used to stream with 200 average viewers. I havenât seen him in awhile, and itâs no wonder why when mech is his signature style and protoss stomps it like itâs trash. Bronze through gold league terrans rely on mech, too. So what is the balance counsel thinking about doing? Theyâre talking about nerfing the thor. These guys have no clue what they are doing at all. Prepare for a mass exodus of bronze terrans after that balance patch hits.
Your last post makes zero sense about terran relying on mech vs toss. Since WOL mech was only broken during HOTS because warhounds were a thing. Mech against toss has always been the weaker path since WOL because toss mech is stronger but gateway is way weaker. Right now a gold level toss in PVT I need both storm and colls to beat a standard terran comp and if they are better off the jump with ghost vikings just crush colls and its a simple gg since emp is in ways better than storm. You know hard hard it isto feedback ghost before you say it? its harder than trying to split to dodge a storm and feedback only hits one.
All of that being said I would love to see mech get some type of buff for terran as it add variance to the matches but all the toss is so op stuff is just stupid.
1 Like
I was thoroughly impressed that Batz didnât give in to the twitch chat QQers. I myself even tried to bait some salty toxicity but the honorable Batz remained humble, gasing up his opponents and pointing out your own mistakes or what you couldâve done differently. Was this a learned behavior over time? or just a focus on having a positive stream.
Lots of factors.
- Even high level gms donât understand the game at all, so does it make sense to talk game design with the mmr-skittles on twitch? No.
- Itâs best to be positive in public and negative in private for a range of reasons. Most people donât have the mental maturity to deal with problems and their emotions will create drama that makes the problem bigger than it needs to be. It draws more attention to the problem, creates secondary effects, etc. Best to just solve it in private and only let those know who need to know.
- I am not a negative person which ironically makes it easy for me to talk about negative things but this emotionally upsets other people who then project their own feelings onto me who then perceive me as negative.
- Gaming is my free time to have some fun, I am in a good mood.
- I consider twitch viewers to be my friends, other communities I consider my enemies, and how I treat them will be different between the two.
- I grew up in a culture that puts heavy emphasis on social activities, group projects, etc. Giving public speeches or performing in front of a group is extremely common. Iâd do it at least 5 times a week for the first two decades of my life. People would legit come up to me crying and tell me I did such a good job and that I am so inspirational (lol).
- I donât have time to detail the intricacies of game design while ladder queuing.
- I generally donât have the patience for conversations, and this goes for online too because I basically never read what other people write because on a very fundamental level I donât care. I often get frustrated with doctoral graduates because their views are too simplistic. Talked to a chick with a masters degree in zoology. She ranted about how much she hates trump and I changed the subject to marketing and how misleading marketing can be. Then I brought it back to politics and how politics is the incarnation of marketing, itâs literally nothing except selling a brand with a personâs face attached, and her brain imploded. Legit couldnât understand that everything she knows about Trump is the product of the marketing complex. A masters graduate, ladies and gentlemen. Waste of time to talk to most people. Part of politics is being good at seeing past the bravado and bluster and figuring out who people really are underneath. In The Prince, Machiavelli said âEveryone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really areâ and boy was he right. Itâs important to know who someone is because you have to be good at picking allies and avoiding enemies. This analogizes well to social interaction in general. To find friends you have to know who you are and who they are and if your interests align or diverge. So this chick has gone her entire life not knowing how to tell the difference between friend or foe and imagine how much trouble itâs caused her along the way.
This reminds me of story. I once took my truck in to a small business and the owner gave me a ride home. I loved talking with him. A very smart fellow. Pulled himself up from his own bootstraps. Mastered not only the entire field of automotive repair but then the field of small business and marketing. At the time, I was watching the TV show Person of Interest and he was watching it to. For perhaps the first time in my life, I actually enjoyed talking with someone. It was a life-changing experience because for the first time I realized what it was like to enjoy talking to someone. I realized I wanted to talk to him again, and that is how I knew I enjoyed it. I had never encountered that before. People tell me I am very good at it but itâs all algorithmic. Mapping inputs to outputs. Knowing what nobs to turn and which ones not to. Avoid negative outcomes and increase the probability of positive ones. But never once had I ever encountered someone I wanted to talk to twice. It was like tasting a new flavor. I remember the first time I had a corned beef reuben. It was a transformative experience.
Talking game balance with mmr-skittles is not a corned beef reuben. Itâs more like a mouthful of dirt, to be honest. I had people irl begging me to stream for years, saying Iâd be a good influence on âthe kidsâ but I kept putting it off because I hate socializing so much. âWhy are thors so OP?â can only be answered by âAre you mentally prepared for a 3 hour discussion on entropy, the stock market, Humeâs law, the meaning of life, and various philosophers such as Nietzsche?â because we canât answer that question without defining the foundational framework that the game is built upon. And no, I am not joking, the placement of a fungal is equivalent to buying stock options. Fugalling in front of the marine glob is equivalent to short selling. The way people micro their disruptors is fascinating and can be mapped to various stock investment strategies. PiG for example shoots his disruptors off early. This reduces their range & penetration into the enemy army at the benefit of giving less time to react. Itâs a short-sell. You are giving up something with guaranteed value in exchange for a chance it pays off in the short term. Why that works, when it works, is equivalent to stock trading. The stock market is entropy, entropy is reality. So if you want to know why thors are OP, you better have a PhD in physics or good luck figuring anything out.
Entropy is the ratio of macrostates to microstates. Imagine all the arrangements of unit positioning & how the game tends to flow from certain arrangements and towards other arrangements. This is how reality creates time. Particles bounce around and statistically certain outcomes are more likely than others and thatâs why time moves forward and not backward. SC2 is based upon this and strategy is created from it because you have to understand what states exist and how they flow towards other states. You have to understand what variables control that flow towards those outcomes and how to leverage it to your advantage. Itâs quite literally equivalent to statistical mechanics.
The stock market is analogous to these systems with one caveat: you have intelligent opponents affecting the system. Thatâs SC2, too: you know the position of a glob of marines, you know they are moving forward, but you donât know if the opponent will add additional inputs between the time when the fungal is cast and when it lands. You also donât know exactly where they are moving to, which means they could stop before getting there. So do you fungal behind, on top, or in front? Itâs equivalent to stock trading. The same strategies apply. If you expect a marine glob to keep moving forward, you fungal in front, if you expect them to stop moving, you fungal on top, if you expect a retreat, you fungal behind. The correct call is the on that balances these odds. Because the movement of marines is a random walk, it follows the same algorithms used to model stock prices.
You can only make money trading because other people are predictable in what they buy in the same way that you can only fungal marines in that the army movements of the opponent is predictable. Over time, the stock market becomes less and less predictable as the âplayersâ adapt to avoid being predictable themselves, which minimizes risk. The same thing happens with SC2 micro. It becomes less and less predictable over time. However, SC2 has physical limitations to what a player can do, and how well they can randomize their unit movements, while the stock market probably doesnât. There is an a baseline limit of randomness that can be approached, but never reached, and thatâs what gives the fungal itâs strength.
So weâve barely touched the tip of the ice berg on what makes fungals strong and Iâve been here for two hours. Lmao. Fungal is strong because the entropy of marine placements is low. That happens because the game has a natural tendency to clump units, and randomness is injected through user inputs which becomes the limiting factor in deciding how unpredictable the unit movements are. The reason SC2 unit movements are âclumpyâ is because they use fluidic behaviors â the movement of one unit is dependent on the movement of other units. So the movement of units are correlated and that makes them predictable unless additional inputs are specified by the user. Such correlations include adhesion and cohesion, which are behaviors added to model the movement of intelligent actors in a 3d space. For example, itâs used to the movement of birds or fish or crowds of people. So on a fundamental level, sc2 models the movement of intelligent actors in 3D space, giving them clumpy properties that reduces their entropy, making them predictable and this makes fungal strong. This brings us to Humeâs law, which allows us to infer interesting properties about intelligent actors and how they behave in clusters, clusters of intelligent actors being what SC2 units are.
Because the motion of SC2âs units and the arrangements they take on has correlated outcomes without user input, the goal of sc2 is to create situations where there either isnât any user input or the user input is, itself, predictable. Why? Because in being predictable you can decide if you want to invest, short sell, or do something else. But because you are dealing with an intelligent opponent who seeks to randomize the game state, you need a model for understanding an intelligent opponent. Thatâs where humeâs law comes in. Humeâs law states that there is no way to derive an âisâ from an âoughtâ statement. Why? Itâs easy to demonstrate with an example. âIt is could outside, I ought to wear a coat.â Why? Maybe you like it to be cold outside so you shouldnât wear a coat. So what you do depends on your goals, not on the facts of the situation at hand. Wwhat your opponent does tells you want his goals are. It could be that he wants his marines to die to banelings. Yes, there are situations where you want that to happen. For example, if you unload marines one by one on top of a glob of banelings, itâs a good trade. So how do you decide if a decision is good or not, when itâs difficult to know what your opponent will do when thatâs based on his goals and those can only be inferred through his actions, which can also be misleading? Itâs easy: he is going to take actions that increase the entropy of the game. Every correct action is the one that makes the outcome more random. In the randomness, a superior player finds a small advantage to leverage for a win.
That means units and abilities with high randomness factors are the strongest units. Nydus for example makes it very difficult for your opponent to know where your army will be and how itâs distributed. Fast moving units have randomness in their positioning. Siege units have randomness in their targeting. Etc, etc.
Every win that has ever happened in SC2 came down to the randomness of a factor like not knowing where a nydus popped or being unable to know where a terran will focus fire his tanks. A zerg might take a fight vs a planetary, not knowing the terran has the perfect focus fire w/ the planetary and kills all the banelings.
The reason fungal is powerful is because it has a high randomness factor when a fungal can be cast literally anywhere within a certain range and it moves quickly. The randomness factor is what makes fungal powerful. TLDR. Banelings by contrast are very predictable and this makes them weak. Their future position is correlated with their current position and current velocity, which makes it predictable. Fungal can happen any time, any place.
That brings us to relative randomness factors. We need to condense this because this post is getting way too flipping long. If you are in a situation where the randomness of your units is higher than the randomness of his, you are advantaged. Baneling vs marine is pretty fair but marine vs fungal is not fair at all. The fungal is highly unpredictable while the position of the marine is reasonably predictable.
Applying this framework to the thor, if the thor is good we would expect it to have a higher randomness factor than the units used to counter thors. Broods are common. Thors have a greater range, making positioning more unpredictable because they cover a wider area. Wider area is harder to know if a spot is safe or not. Because the brood v thor dynamic is mostly a range interaction, the thor has the relative randomness advantage. Itâs easy for terran to pick spots that are good for his thors, and harder for the zerg to pick spots that are good for his broods.
If you want to beat thors using broods, you have to include another unit that increases the randomness factor. Blinding cloud is a good candidate because the terran canât know how to position his thors because he doesnât know where the blinding cloud will be cast. Thus a brood + viper army has a higher relative randomness factor than thors alone. And so on and so forth.
The strategy of SC2 is about creating situations where the relative randomness factor is in your advantaged. Game balance is equal when all races have the same baseline randomness factors in typical game situations. TLDR.
Shall we analyze the carrier under this framework? It has perhaps the most unpredictable unit movement of all units in the game, second to only recall, prism pickup, adept shading, stalker blink, and letâs not forget warpgate. Why is protoss the strongest race? The relative randomness factor. 
EDIT: donât forget DT blink, lol.
EDIT: also, if protoss has the highest randomness factor, what happens when itâs protoss vs protoss? Is there a reason protoss hate PvP? Hmmm⌠
1,000 words seems like a lot when you could just apologize for defending burrowed fungals which is the pinnacle of randomness.
This guy understands:
It was instant speed, too. Aka no projectile. Whatâs interesting is that something that creates options for you comes at the cost of appearing random to the opponent. You have all the options in when and where to fungal a marine glob while burrowed, but his only option is to bite his nails all game long while waiting for the fungals to land and then crying after it does. Thatâs why itâs interesting to compare it to entropy. Entropy is a measure of randomness and SC2 is a battle of putting all the control in your hands, aka minimizing randomness, and none of the control in your opponentâs, aka maximizing randomness.
The reason being that, in a balanced game, the opponent has options that he can use to mitigate, nullify, or even reverse the damage. The turn order advantage (aka tempo) means he is one step behind in doing so, which makes it harder, and that biases the outcome negatively. From there, the only factor deciding if your attack succeeds is if he can predict that itâs going to happen. If he can, he will take measures to mitigate it and while tempo makes it unlikely he can still do it if he is skilled enough. Randomness preempts this because he canât react to it until it happens, and in many cases that is simply too late.
I said in the past that I think SC2 mastery is a new manifestation of OCD. I also think itâs a manifestation of the primordial hunter. Think about it. People would sit for hours waiting for food to pass, peering through a tiny window in the trees, before using a bow and arrow to score some dinner. The longer you could sit and the stiller you could sit the more food you caught and that meant better nutrition for your children. SC2 requires a similar behavior of sitting and only moving your hands and arms only a little while staying focused on the movements of things through a tiny window.
The analogy can be deepened, too. Hunting is about watching the movements of groups of animals from a distance and predicting their behavior. The American Indians used to corner buffalo on cliffs for example in the same way youâd corner some retreating units against a cliff. Thatâs exactly whatâs happening in SC2.
I think the strategies and biological traits that developed over thousands of years for hunting were probably repurposed for war. Again, watching groups of humans clash from a distance. Those traits then passed down to SC2 players. War & hunting are both highly gendered, and so is SC2, which is an interesting pattern.
SC2 is highly gendered and this is true especially for the highest ranks. I think the only (biological) woman to get grandmaster, publicly, was MsSpyte, and that was in much easier versions of the game. Vision is no doubt extremely important to SC2 performance since you need to be able to see the screen & identify whatâs going on. You also need high resolution information to know what situation you are in. We know that sex related genes impact vision with men, for example, having increased rates of color blindness. This is a very controversial subject at the moment because a bunch of hyper woke academics aka âwoke-ademicsâ are infusing politics into their science and have set out on a crusade to prove there are little to no biological differences between men and women. For example, the AI on google that gives you AI-generated answers to science questions gives you a super-woke âthere are no differencesâ answer, but if you dig into the literature itâs clear there are not only differences in the structure of eyes, but in the algorithms used by the brain to process the information. Not only that, it produces measurable performance differences:
https://imgur.com/a/CZ26Iwm
When identifying an object in an image, men were faster, had different brain patterns, and higher-amplitude brain patterns (meaning the men found it more stimulating).
Other studies found men are up to 75% faster at noticing motion, and that their attention to that motion is point-like while the attention of women is more scan-like. So men tend to focus on a thing, women tend to focus on the broader picture.
So we know there are big differences in vision between men and women, and that this impacts speed, that men find object-identification more stimulating, and itâs pretty obvious why the high levels of SC2 are gendered.
Now to tie this in with my hunting theory. Anthropologists have theorized that men did most of the hunting mainly because itâs dangerous and men tend to be bigger and stronger, larger bones, thicker skulls, thicker skin, etc, all of which indicates that men have had substantial selection pressure put on them that skewed their biology towards these traits. Hunting is a very good candidate for that because itâs easy to see how you could get hurt by killing animals and the weakest men didnât get to pass on their genes because they broke bones, had their skulls bashed in, etc. Another interesting trait is that menâs eyes are more recessed which is to protect them from damage during conflict. Again, men with less recessed eyes probably died due to eye damage during hunting.
So we have SC2 which is highly gendered and which mimics hunting behaviors which are also highly gendered with overlapping traits between the two. Hunting is a game of identifying motion as fast as possible to, for example, shoot a bird with an arrow before it flies away, and being 75% faster is a huge advantage. Being 75% faster at identifying some motion inside sc2 is also quite obviously advantaged.
In addition to that, modern day hunting is also highly gendered with 77% of hunters being men. Additionally, war is highly gendered because the ratio for men:women deaths in war is about 9:1.
The theory that SC2 engages the mental processes biologically hard wired into men to hunt animals is a pretty robust theory in other words. There is a lot of overlap in the traits that make men good at war and hunting and sc2, and they engage in similar behaviors.
I think OCD still plays a role because you have to have the vim to repeat the same process like a robot for hours until itâs perfect, and thatâs a behavioral pattern SC2 players have in common with OCD. Someone with OCD will have a very strict process on how to clean a bathroom and they will clean it perfectly and they will redo it if they mess up slightly. So SC2 might be an intersection point between genes that make someone good at hunting and genes that make someone obsessive.
https://i.imgur.com/XQnFkqa.png
Also I am 95% certain this 4600 mmr barcode zerg is avilo. Avilo played a bit of zerg on his main account and he opened lurker on 2 base and skipped upgrades for vipers off hive. Itâs the âaviloâ way of playing zerg. Thatâs exactly how this guy plays. I just nydused his main when he tried to take a fourth. Easy mmr. Iâd be able to recognize Playaâs playstyle because he had a build he stuck to like super glue with very unique identifiers. So in the same way I can tell which accounts are avilo Iâd know if playa still played. I havenât run into him since his melt down calling blizzard racist. Heâd always blind chronoboost a zealot and then go void ray. Heâd do this every single time.
Primordial hunter mech players stood afk while waiting for their food to appear in front of them. Primordial hunter bio players chased them down until they couldnât continue running, 100% an endurance test which humans excel at over other species.
I also like the fact that you use this entropy hypothesis to state that mech is underpowered. So theyâre less likely to cause randomness in a sc2 game since all they do is siege tanks and wait, so thereâs no entropy to be found, thus mech is underpowered. Nope, mech is lazyness, putting it on the opponent to make plays rather than taking the initiative.
Eye sockets and in particular eyebrows are to stop sweat from impacting your vision and to help express emotion/communicate. Sorry champ, this is like Jordan Peterson trying to redefine the term ârat kingâ so he can stop blabbering on about lobsters.
I am not familiar with the rat king story. But he leans heavily on analogy which is a smart strategy because anytime he gets the science wrong, and when you talk as much as he does itâs bound to happen, he can say it was an analogy or rhetorical or abstract. A more common strategy is to use humor, but he doesnât have much. Heâs a very serious person. The reason humor works is because you can play the âit was just a joke, broâ card and accuse the other person of being overly serious. Then you can play the moral highground by offering a fig leaf by lightening the mood with humor again by making a joke off the person who is being too serious. Thatâs the trope of the shakespearean fool. The humor allows them to go places that other people canât. He doesnât have access to this so he uses hyperbole and abstraction. If it doesnât make sense, itâs because your thinking isnât abstract enough.
Both good theories. They probably serve a range of roles. One of the parameters is gendered because for males the eye sockets are deeper and that means there must have been selection pressure on men who had shallow eyes. The best theory is that men with deeper eyes had safer eyes. Another theory is that the length of the optical nerve affects the speed optical information can be processed, and having a shorter one gives you an advantage to reacting to danger. But both of these fit nicely into the âmen were huntersâ theory. The wokeademics are trying to gaslight women that they actually love killing animals, and they donât see how utterly idiotic that strategy is. They are trying to uplift women and tell them they can do what men can do, but what they are really doing is coming across as insane because women have the compassionate and protective instincts and these are so strong they even extend to animals. Thatâs why there are 2 female vegans for every 1 male and for every 1 dollar a man donates to charity a woman donates 2. And the researchers gaslighting women that they were mighty hunters donât realize how bad the optics are for that kind of anti scientific nonsense. The demographics they are targeting wonât even buy it.
The wokeademics are an interesting lot because there are traits that scientists tend to have that are bad and causes all sorts of problems for those scientists. For example, scientists tend to not be socially or politically savvy, which greatly impedes their ability to get funding. If you are socially adept, you end up where elon musk is at, but most arenât. The problem for the wokeademics is that they are bad at science and they are bad at the social and political aspects of science. And thatâs R E A L L Y bad.
I am of the opinion that sugar-coating the science only backfires & produces anti-scientific sentiments. The reason being, a lot of women are going to think the scientists pushing âwomen were huntersâ theory are insane. That does damage to the entire scientific apparatus and undermines science at its very core. Science cannot be political, which is essentially what is happening here, because they are trying to use science for political ends e.g. the feminist movement is using science to prove women can do what men can do with literally zero differences. Itâs a mixture of some who actually believe the theories and those who just go along with it because itâs politically convenient and they think itâs harmless and not worth the effort to correct. But the reality is that bad optics are extremely harmful. A good example is nuclear energy. Itâs the safest form of energy but the general population is terrified of it. So itâs a good example of how important the optics are and if you arenât honest with the general population, regardless of the reason, itâs going to produce bad optics.
If you add in the issues with false positives / reproducibility, as well as fraud, the scientific community really doesnât have any room to bend the rules because anti-scientific sentiments are growing inside the general population. This is extreme dangerous because this is the first time in history that mankind has started to rely on science instead of religion and most of the world still doesnât rely on science more than religion. These scientists are playing a dangerous game that could throw humanity back into the stone age.
Mech players are the civilization builders who build borders, plant crops, and raise livestock. Bio players are the nomad tribalists who died to small pox (fungal & parabomb).
Mech is way harder than bio because it requires more screen movements. You are constantly darting back and forth between clusters of mech units to reposition them. The weakness of mech is that once in position they canât move and so if the opponent knows the position then he can avoid it. Thatâs true unless you are constantly re-arranging the positioning of the mech units. Because mech units have a range advantage, the opponent canât know the positioning of the units after a certain time period has passed since seeing them last. A faster player shortens this time period. That means the positioning of the mech units is effectively random from the opponentâs perspective. This would be insanely powerful which is why liberators give a warning circle. Remove the warning circle and the randomness factor goes through the flipping roof. You could never attack a mech player basically ever. Iâd say that mech has the randomness factor advantage excluding the nydus. But it really depends on the tempo because if the mech player is spread too thin it becomes obvious where the mech units are and it becomes much harder to predict where the next nydus will be and that gives zerg the relative randomness advantage.
Lurkers are a siege unit but not with a range advantage. Instead they have a cloaking advantage when burrowed. That means the longer since the last time you saw them the more likely they have moved and vs an opponent that randomizes their army movements you canât know where. Lurker positioning also appears random from the opponentâs perspective. But from zergâs perspective itâs not random at all.
Thatâs why itâs a âmeaning of lifeâ argument. The best theory for how the universe works is quantum electrodynamics. But this theory is built on randomness. It appears random from our perspective and isnât that an interesting coincidence. The fundamental reason that randomness exists is because to make a measurement you have to interact with the the thing you are measuring, which changes it. So you canât measure everything about the system. The same thing applies to SC2 because to figure out where the lurkers are you have to interact with the opponent which changes what the opponent is doing in the fog of war. That means understanding SC2 strategy requires quantum like modeling. You can know the direction the lurkers are moving but not their final position. And if you know their final position you donât know what direction they will be moved in.
Here is a fun quote:
I am an astrophysicist. When I was in graduate school in the early '90s it became apparent to me that the theorists were doing exactly what this video says. They were using mathematics to âexplainâ some idea they had with absolutely no interest or ability for this idea to be tested in the real universe. In many cases their ideas [were] inconsistent with observations (after all astronomy is primarily an observational science) and they didnât care. They often didnât bother to claim the observations were erroneous. They just didnât care.
Then in the late '90s I was a postdoc and discovered that all of the funding in US astrophysics was controlled by 5 personalities. These people declared what would get funding and be researched and what would not. I say personalities because thatâs what was going on; it was a cult of personalities. Everyone kowtowed to these 5 individuals. Postdocs would write papers extolling the ideas of these people, even the untestable ideas. They and their postdocs and students were awarded all of the telescope time they asked for and got the lions share of funding. It was disgusting and exactly the opposite of what science needs to be to be successful.
Years ago I gave it up, and now I am a teacher and science popularizer, but as far as I can tell from the outside, nothing has changed.
This is a comment from a video talking about a common type of fraud in the physics community where they spitball insane theories they know have no merit in order to get funding. Psychology has the same issues, as does biology, neurology, climate science. Climate science is perhaps the biggest offender right now because not just scientists but loads of big businesses are pushing it due to its earning potential.
Anywhere politics (or marketing) intersect science it becomes an absolute mess. You need awareness to sell products & get funding and that requires people to become media personalities. Musk and Jobs are perhaps the best examples but there are many more. Once a personality, they can single handedly decide what gets funding or not by drawing attention to it through media. This power is extremely useful to businesses who pay ludicrous sums of money to have the media personalities shine light on things that are beneficial to the business. Thatâs how you get the entire planet thinking electric cars are the future of mankind when in reality thatâs an insane theory. For example, the amount of copper needed to beef up the power infrastructure would require mankind to double its copper production over 10 years, which has historically never happened ever for any natural resource.
The scientific community becomes an arm of the corrupt corporations who dictate what the science is by financially starving any scientists who read off script.
They say history doesnât repeat but it does rhyme. Well this has happened before in recent history. During the Cold War, the scientific community was captured by the industrial war complex in a similar fashion, so the research was horribly biased towards a stereotypical warhawkâs view of reality. For example, if they discovered an ancient human settlement that was abandoned, it was obviously abandoned because of war. An animal went extinct and it was warâs fault. Some trees fell over and that too was a product of war. Migration routes changed which was war yet again. So on and so forth. What does that sound like right now? Climate science. Climate change causes everything from heart disease to hurricanes.
Science has become a giant grift where fraudsters cook up insane theories they sell to the public for their marketability and earning potential instead of their usefulness. Itâs literally a âSaul Goodmanâ quality scam played out on mass scales to defraud consumers. Itâs crazy stuff, man.