So, widow mines.

General Discussion
03/13/2019 11:27 AMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
03/13/2019 10:24 AMPosted by tEhbAtZ
...
Trading evenly with a lower income = advantaged.


I think you got that backwards there.

If guy A makes $10/hr and guy B makes $15/hr and after 3 hours they both spend $10 then who has more leftover?

Maybe it is a misunderstanding? I think BatZ menat "Trading evenly with a lower income": not if you have that lower income but the opponent.
It goes without saying that if you fine a bum and a millionare with a 100$, the bum starves and the millionare does not notice any damage.
03/13/2019 11:45 AMPosted by Gooba
03/13/2019 11:27 AMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
...

I think you got that backwards there.

If guy A makes $10/hr and guy B makes $15/hr and after 3 hours they both spend $10 then who has more leftover?

Maybe it is a misunderstanding? I think BatZ menat "Trading evenly with a lower income": not if you have that lower income but the opponent.
It goes without saying that if you fine a bum and a millionare with a 100$, the bum starves and the millionare does not notice any damage.


"Trading evenly" the first part, meaning we both lost an equal value. "With a lower income" meaning the person in reference has the lesser income. "= advantaged" meaning the person in reference is at an advantage.

This is how I read and understood what he meant. If he meant something else then that needs to be explained.

If you trade evenly with less income you are disadvantaged because it takes longer to replace the value you lost. Or you have traded a higher percentage of your income for a lower percentage of their income. Either way leaves the lesser income player at a disadvantage.
03/13/2019 11:37 AMPosted by tEhbAtZ
03/13/2019 11:27 AMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
...

I think you got that backwards there.

If guy A makes $10/hr and guy B makes $15/hr and after 3 hours they both spend $10 then who has more leftover?

One made 15x3 but traded it against 10x3. He was less efficient. Less efficient = disadvantage.


Then say "trading efficient = advantaged" this point I agree with, allows for slower expansions etc.
03/13/2019 11:51 AMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
"Trading evenly" the first part, meaning we both lost an equal value.

No. It means both players are producing the same army strength and as they trade niether is gaining or losing ground. To do that, zerg has to spend more money, hence the higher base count and income. Having to spend more money to produce the same strength of army is less resource efficient. Being less efficient is a huge disadvantage, period.

When you are trading evenly, the Zerg is disadvantaged because he is mining bases out faster and has to replace those with bases that are increasingly harder to defend. Due to this, for him to actually be trading evenly he needs to be winning fights enough to offset how his defense costs will continue to rise and how it will become more and more inefficient to trade. The zerg has to actively gain territory to maintain the income needed to produce equal army strength.
03/13/2019 11:51 AMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
03/13/2019 11:45 AMPosted by Gooba
...
Maybe it is a misunderstanding? I think BatZ menat "Trading evenly with a lower income": not if you have that lower income but the opponent.
It goes without saying that if you fine a bum and a millionare with a 100$, the bum starves and the millionare does not notice any damage.


"Trading evenly" the first part, meaning we both lost an equal value. "With a lower income" meaning the person in reference has the lesser income. "= advantaged" meaning the person in reference is at an advantage.

This is how I read and understood what he meant. If he meant something else then that needs to be explained.

If you trade evenly with less income you are disadvantaged because it takes longer to replace the value you lost. Or you have traded a higher percentage of your income for a lower percentage of their income. Either way leaves the lesser income player at a disadvantage.

LOL.
There is no need to preech to the choir. I agree with you on this. It is nearly self-evident that in a duel between two people where the A has one bullet and B has two and they both miss (trade evenly) the first shoot, B has a very high probability to kill A (unless he misses the second shot).
03/12/2019 11:07 AMPosted by Gooba
03/12/2019 10:51 AMPosted by NinjaDuckBob
...Was he saying Mines are too weak? From what I can tell, he was countering the idea that Mines are too strong, not saying that they're weak.

LOL, i lost count. Wirebender was arguing that they are not cost-effective enough, and Platys argued that they are useless (sic).......
OP was complaining that they are OP with a little exaggeration (in the solution department).....
DRFG post is as usual a solid one but he is seen from terran-apologists as a Protoss agent and from protoss-apologists as a Terran agent.....

Whoah whoah, I am not saying mines are bad. Mines are amazing units, especially against Protoss, but they are definately not broken units. Just very good.
03/13/2019 11:56 AMPosted by tEhbAtZ
03/13/2019 11:51 AMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
"Trading evenly" the first part, meaning we both lost an equal value.

No. It means both players are producing the same army strength and as they trade niether is gaining or losing ground. To do that, zerg has to spend more money, hence the higher base count and income. Having to spend more money to produce the same strength of army is less resource efficient. Being less efficient is a huge disadvantage, period.


That's just a difference of terms then. I call trading evenly as both players lost x value as in both lost 100 minerals, you call trading evenly trading the same % of income. With your definition your term is correct, with mine it's the opposite. That's all.
03/13/2019 12:07 PMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
03/13/2019 11:56 AMPosted by tEhbAtZ
...
No. It means both players are producing the same army strength and as they trade niether is gaining or losing ground. To do that, zerg has to spend more money, hence the higher base count and income. Having to spend more money to produce the same strength of army is less resource efficient. Being less efficient is a huge disadvantage, period.


That's just a difference of terms then. I call trading evenly as both players lost x value as in both lost 100 minerals, you call trading evenly trading the same % of income. With your definition your term is correct, with mine it's the opposite. That's all.
Another factor is is rate of remax. If both players have a bank and one side has to spend more to trade armies, but can remax before the opponent can, and can end the game or get a significant advantage with that remax, then it can still be favorable for the player that had to spend more to trade armies because they get a significant timing advantage in exchange for the inefficient army trade.
03/13/2019 12:19 PMPosted by NinjaDuckBob
03/13/2019 12:07 PMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
...

That's just a difference of terms then. I call trading evenly as both players lost x value as in both lost 100 minerals, you call trading evenly trading the same % of income. With your definition your term is correct, with mine it's the opposite. That's all.
Another factor is is rate of remax. If both players have a bank and one side has to spend more to trade armies, but can remax before the opponent can, and can end the game or get a significant advantage with that remax, then it can still be favorable for the player that had to spend more to trade armies because they get a significant timing advantage in exchange for the inefficient army trade.


My entire playstyle is predicated on this exact principle. I basically willingly take uneven trades to my deficit if it still least wears my opponent down where I try to have a faster rebuild than they have meaning while I lost more, my income advantage is greater than that deficit I lost. I call it the Zap Branigan method of war.
03/13/2019 12:07 PMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
03/13/2019 11:56 AMPosted by tEhbAtZ
...
No. It means both players are producing the same army strength and as they trade niether is gaining or losing ground. To do that, zerg has to spend more money, hence the higher base count and income. Having to spend more money to produce the same strength of army is less resource efficient. Being less efficient is a huge disadvantage, period.


That's just a difference of terms then. I call trading evenly as both players lost x value as in both lost 100 minerals, you call trading evenly trading the same % of income. With your definition your term is correct, with mine it's the opposite. That's all.

It depends on what you are referencing when saying "trading evenly". If a zerg is trading evenly in resources, then the zerg is ahead because he is building a bank of some sort, whether that'sin resources or army supply. If the zerg is producing an equal army strength, his army will be more resource expensive.
03/13/2019 12:45 PMPosted by tEhbAtZ
03/13/2019 12:07 PMPosted by DrFuzzyGlove
...

That's just a difference of terms then. I call trading evenly as both players lost x value as in both lost 100 minerals, you call trading evenly trading the same % of income. With your definition your term is correct, with mine it's the opposite. That's all.

It depends on what you are referencing when saying "trading evenly". If a zerg is trading evenly in resources, then the zerg is ahead because he is building a bank of some sort, whether that'sin resources or army supply. If the zerg is producing an equal army strength, his army will be more resource expensive.


Yes, what I was saying just differently. We agree here, was just me reading words and applying them to a different meaning than what you meant by them which happens.
03/12/2019 05:18 AMPosted by srav
Are there plans to make them a fair unit or will they keep being the most cost-effective unit in the game?


Hello. I think this might be your problem with Widow Mines:

05/28/2017 01:42 PMPosted by srav
Well, with my 75-105 as zerg, l must be really bad huh.


75 APM and holding high diamond is pretty impressive. I mean it's like you are partially AFK however you still win most of the games. With that APM you probably don't do much and especially when it's coming to micro but you are still diamond. Isn't this actually race issue? First of all try to not throwing all your melee units with the F2 button. This could help a bit.
Making mines cost minerals to reload is stupid, but they should get their build time buff reverted.
03/13/2019 03:59 PMPosted by DukeNukem
03/12/2019 05:18 AMPosted by srav
Are there plans to make them a fair unit or will they keep being the most cost-effective unit in the game?


Hello. I think this might be your problem with Widow Mines:

05/28/2017 01:42 PMPosted by srav
Well, with my 75-105 as zerg, l must be really bad huh.


75 APM and holding high diamond is pretty impressive. I mean it's like you are partially AFK however you still win most of the games. With that APM you probably don't do much and especially when it's coming to micro but you are still diamond. Isn't this actually race issue? First of all try to not throwing all your melee units with the F2 button. This could help a bit.


So, let me get this straight :
You're quoting a 2017 old post, assuming that I've made no progress since then, and you're actually believing that I was already in diamond back then with 75 APM ? Is that it ?

You should dig further and search for 2013 threads and quote posts where I admitted to not playing with hotkeys, I'm sure that would be relevant too.
03/14/2019 02:46 AMPosted by srav
03/13/2019 03:59 PMPosted by DukeNukem
...

Hello. I think this might be your problem with Widow Mines:

...

75 APM and holding high diamond is pretty impressive. I mean it's like you are partially AFK however you still win most of the games. With that APM you probably don't do much and especially when it's coming to micro but you are still diamond. Isn't this actually race issue? First of all try to not throwing all your melee units with the F2 button. This could help a bit.


So, let me get this straight :
You're quoting a 2017 old post, assuming that I've made no progress since then, and you're actually believing that I was already in diamond back then with 75 APM ? Is that it ?

You should dig further and search for 2013 threads and quote posts where I admitted to not playing with hotkeys, I'm sure that would be relevant too.


To be fair my t and p are both mid plat and my zerg is plat 1 and I have maybe 70 Apm with both t and p and 90-100 with zerg. Once I manage get back into a routine I should be able to get diamond with all 3 and my Apm hasn't improved much at all since I started playing again right before lotv. I'll likely be in diamond with 75 average Apm with t and p. Zerg gets inflated because of how production works

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum