Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkHeart
There is little or no skill involved in running a terran planet Mzyxptkl. Build DE fleet. Build BS fleet. Go roid. Faking and the decision to be a distwhore or not is about as skillful as a Terran planet gets, but lets be honest you could train a monkey to make a fake attack
|
I'd say in this round, a GREAT deal of skill is needed to even try and play TER with any effect. As for just "build a DE fleet, and Build a BS fleet", which naturally you get later than other races, and costs you more, both in res and in the ETAs. Faking detrimentally hurts TER appallingly. Earlier on I told you that as far as their effective fleet (BS) goes they can MAX launch 198 missions that land in a 90 day round. Every FAKE mission burns the crap out of that, even before you talk about lost time in research and constructions. We are sitting right at the tail end of the round, TER has been battered - and no real sign of their end of round BS power of old has shown up at all. I'm ZIK this round, and I have been able to hit lonesome TER with virtual impunity using FR. The only hope a TER has is for someone else non TER to come defend them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkHeart
Your kind of getting the perspective I'm trying to represent Mzyxptkl (damn ur name is hard to type), but I am not claiming everybody could have done well despite choosing terran, I'm claiming everybody had the same potential to do well despite choosing terran. A subtle difference.
|
Everyone could do well, despite evidence that points to the opposite. TER players in RD22 had the odds stacked against them not in the usual PA way of 2 or 3 weaknesses, but in far too many areas. Therefore the 'same potential' despite picking TER is an absolute falacy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkHeart
The rest of your post is actually contrary to what I'm saying Mzyxptkl. I agree with you and reiterate my shared belief that 4:3:7 has by all accounts required a vast amount of galaxy and alliance support.
|
Which means that its good for 4.3.7, but its skewing the overall estimation of TER.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkHeart
But this is where the essence of my initial response to Ad is formed. It is not completely the fault of the stats that have failed terran players, and I have put 4:3:7 up on a pedestal merely as an undisputable shining example of where a terran could have got to this round despite of the stats.
|
*HEADSCRATCHING*
I have no idea why you are smokescreening this badly. As I said before, its not just ship STATS that is the problem. Its way beyond ship stats.
TER downsides.
1. Long ETA (BS max number of successful landings =198, less if you take real world game issues into account) When you are going to have so few landings, you would be crazy to fake blowing the few ETAs you have..
2. Long RESEARCH (TER can't even roid till late on..)
3. High cost (Thus, TER has to try and finance high cost ships, it has no choice, while being limited early game by the cost of initing roids, and being denied the chance to roid. Vicious circle, if you init, you can't buy ships. If you buy ships, you are so poor the build rate is tiny..)
4. ETD eat TER BS for breakfast(oh dear, there dies the old advantage TER had..)
5 ZIK FR kill TER with impunity. (What use is all your armour and firepower if its useless, dead, smoking wreckage?)
6. As someone else said, TER can't actually defend. TER has to rely on def from others.
4.3.7 is not a shining example of what a TER can do. Its a shining example of what 4.3/4.3.7 Alliance can do with a TER.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarkHeart
Furball, I can't profess any knowledge of round 13, thats one of the many rounds I missed, but surely a large proportion of the one ally all choosing the worst race explains why this is the.....'outlier' against Satyrs hypothesis
|
I understand that from round to round, there will always be a case for someone/something to be found wanting. Whats annoying now here, is if people like you pitch the idea that TER is ok, then it won't get fixed/improved..