At least this insulting post is shorter and more to the point. Thanks for wasting less of our time.@robo do obvious trolls rly have a place on this forum? I fully support the suggestions of closing this troll-thread now.
At least this insulting post is shorter and more to the point. Thanks for wasting less of our time.@robo do obvious trolls rly have a place on this forum? I fully support the suggestions of closing this troll-thread now.
Makes sense in a BF game whith a closed map. Why don't you play against him on voobly again, if you are so sure that you'll win?After our matches, I asked TheHand if in future games he would trade. Knowing I was coming for him immediately when the 40 minute treaty was up. Knowing it wasnt profitable at that time in game. Knowing he wasn't safe. He said yes. Nobody disagreed or called him delusional.
Maye you should learn to distinguish between insults and natural reactions to your behavior.At least this insulting post is shorter and more to the point. Thanks for wasting less of our time.
Because I'm in this for the math amd science. I already know based on the two games, and rewatching them that Im a significantly better player than TheHand. Did you watch the final game between us?Makes sense in a BF game whith a closed map. Why don't you play against him on voobly again, if you are so sure that you'll win?
Maye you should learn to distinguish between insults and natural reactions to your behavior.
Insults can be natural reactions. You took two things that don't have any reason to be opposing and said they are opposing. A natural reaction to someone cutting you off in traffic might be to flip them off. It's both a natural reaction AND an insult.Maye you should learn to distinguish between insults and natural reactions to your behavior.
maye you should learn to spell.
@robo do obvious trolls rly have a place on this forum? I fully support the suggestions of closing this troll-thread now.
Oh cool we're back to useless slights at my skill level. I hammered the only person who answered my challenge scenario, and he didn't turn a trade profit. Why don't you attempt to contribute something useful, rather than joining in with the insults?
Truth does not absolve insults. In fact Id argue an insult, if not true, makes little sense.It is not an insult. It is already proven by science that players on that level are inconsistent and less mechanically able than better players. Thus, higher variance requires a way higher samplesize than 1,2, 3 games to put any trust in values like resources gathered at a certain time. Just a missed or delayed eco upgrade can account for thousands of resources at 40 minutes. Also it is just planely worse timings, idle tcs, idle markets, resources not spent. All of which is just far from playing optimal. And as it is, optimal play is pretty much assumed when talking strategies around here. So anecdotal evidence from your rated games, games vs the hand, from your scenarios are worthless to even mention in this thread.
If only there was an easier way to stop troll threads...Maybe everyone should shut up and leave this thread alone
Also, maye you should learn to spell.
math amd science.
dropped bevause of his bad setup.
dont
havent
context matters, u know?
maye go back to the drawing board with that one
Well now we're using racial slurs? Maybe let's go back to just mindlessly insulting my skill level? Grow up.
Psychohistory, the only math known to accurately predict human behaviour, only applies to suficiently large masses. So it doesn't apply to a 1v1.
I was actually just referring to Asimov, so if you know more about it being an actual science let me knowI thought, you were talking about Asimov =). Didn't know, that this was actually a branch of science.
no matter how low u set the bar, always somebody going right underneath
Well now we're using racial slurs? Maybe let's go back to just mindlessly insulting my skill level? Grow up.
See in a world where everyone else trades, you wouldnt even notice the disadvantage it puts you in early. If everyone lost a vil luring a boar, nobody would notice the edge from not losing one.Classic aoezone. Isn't the op basically saying that trading only makes sense after a certain specific point in time, because investing into trade takes away ressources which one could spend on military? Isn't that obvious? If I understand correctly, he also seems to be saying that this point in time is something like 40 minutes (?) and that one can lose a game because one invested in trading? I don't think that the op's maths and simulation is powerful enough to reasonably determine that point in time (which is obviously map-dependent, how much gold one has within reach, how much gold one needs, etc). As for the claim that trading can one make lose a game: that, if ever, is possible only if one is very unexperienced. Does anyone here feel they lost a game because of that? I don't, but I probably lost a few games because I didn't trade early enough.
It's hard to keep track of his exact claims, as he's had to update them regularly. It started off as trading is sub-optimal, don't do it, please see my youtube video for proof. Then we progressed through every pro player is part of a cult that obsesses over trade, and all us plebs just blindly follow them. All hail Lord Daut. Then we got to maybe only beginners should avoid trade, as they can't defend well enough to make it worthwhile, which runs counter to the pedagogy of optimal skill acquisition. But hey, what do I know, it's only my profession. At some point he did actually concede the trader could defend the seller's push, and that was that as far as I was concerned. I won't deny my naiveté. Now we're kind of at "Fight me, bruv. Chat ****, get banged. But only on HD. Voobly scares me."Classic aoezone. Isn't the op basically saying that trading only makes sense after a certain specific point in time, because investing into trade takes away ressources which one could spend on military? Isn't that obvious? If I understand correctly, he also seems to be saying that this point in time is something like 40 minutes (?) and that one can lose a game because one invested in trading? I don't think that the op's maths and simulation is powerful enough to reasonably determine that point in time (which is obviously map-dependent, how much gold one has within reach, how much gold one needs, etc). As for the claim that trading can one make lose a game: that, if ever, is possible only if one is very unexperienced. Does anyone here feel they lost a game because of that? I don't, but I probably lost a few games because I didn't trade early enough.