Anaryl wrote:
I havent seen any FAChart analysis - you locked the thread re: out test games. You're hardly innocent when it comes to not answering - I mean how many bomber threads have you locked now?
There was one bomber thread which was locked due to your behavior. The FAChart analysis was posted early on in it; you ignored it in favor of arguing.
Anaryl wrote:uberge3k wrote:That's exactly what you argued against in the last thread regarding our test game. You can't have it both ways; therefore, the rest of your argument can be applied to yourself as well.
I'm not sure what you mean - Elaborate.
You argued that the game I played vs you, that I won, regardless of your attempt at bomber first, should not count because "you weren't used to the faction", "I'm rated higher than you", etc. In short, arguing that "a game where someone went bomber first and lost the game" should not count due to factors not related to bombers. You then argued the inverse of this a moment ago. As I said, you cannot have it both ways.
Anaryl wrote:
Ok retracted, I'll amend it to out of the ken of 95% of players.
What do you mean by this? Isen is one of the strongest micro players currently playing, yet his games should not count because... why?
Anaryl wrote:
Two, even three AA can't kill a bomber in one pass
I never said that they could. I said that they could kill it on the bomber's second pass.
Anaryl wrote:
which means you lose an engy
If the person controlling the bomber micros it, and you do not move your engy out of the way, then yes, you can lose an engineer.
Anaryl wrote:
and as a value add, you get intel (so lets add on the mass cost of a T1 air scout)
What about the intel you get from a LAB's vision radius? Or any other unit's? It's disingenuous to randomly add the costs of other units onto other units in an attempt to make your argument look better, and the fact that you're having to stoop to such measures indicates that you realize how shaky your argument is.
Anaryl wrote:
and you've disrupted your opponents strategy meaning he has to focus on his macro, in addition micro'ing any raiders, or expanding engys.
Just as you would with LABs. No difference here.
Anaryl wrote:
You've never definitively demonstrated that mobile AA is cost effective.
Two AAs + scout = 60 mass (26 + 26 + 8).
T1 bomber = 80 mass.
Cost of going air first compared to going land first: 300 mass (air fac + bomber).
Therefore, the bomber would need to kill > 240 mass worth of units in order to be cost effective, including the defense cost of two T1 AAs and the scout. That's 5 engineers. Very few bombers kill that much, and thus, are not cost effective.
Anaryl wrote:
You don't watch very many replays then. The loss of multiple pgens in the first couple of minutes is most definitely game ending.
Early on in the bomber thread, someone posts a replay of their pgens dying within the first few minutes. They proceed to come back from this minor setback and outright murder the poor guy who went bomber first. I highly recommend looking it up.
Anaryl wrote:
<snip> Bombers are superior to LABs in every way shape and form.
As they should be, seeing as bombers cost far more than LABs and require the investment of an air factory. That is not the point I was making. Vs a player who knows how to counter bomber first, equal mass invented in LABs is almost assuredly a better investment.
Anaryl wrote:
Plenty of games are won with bomber first.
Blanket statements and "weasel words" such as this underline the lack of evidence to support your case. "plenty of games are won" with virtually every tactic, including, say, Paragon Rush.
Anaryl wrote:
The profligacy of the tactic in the IMBA Cup further serves to underline the current state of play. I'm willing to bet again that it will be very prevalent in the upcoming selectionals/IMBA Cup II.
In my own experience, whomever went bomber first in the Imba Cup, on most maps, was at a disadvantage. Take my first round vs Deathly. He went bomber first, I defended against it, I won. I can't speak to the exact circumstances of every other game (nor can you).
On this topic, you seem to keep flip-flopping between "anyone who uses bomber first and wins proves that bomber first is imbaaaa" and "well if you didn't win with bomber first it's because <insert excuse>".
Anaryl wrote:
Two, maybe, but that's not equal to the mass cost of a bomber, 3 is, and 4 is what's required to put one to bed on a land map. On a map like Open waters/Red Rocks, you'll need even more.
I just explained that this is not the case.
Anaryl wrote:
1. I've already stated, all you need is one engy to get your value from your bomber. That takes only one pass. In the presence of AA, an experienced player won't give you the second pass, thus denying you the opportunity to counter the threat.
Anaryl wrote:
3. Far more than one pass? No it only needs two engys to make up it's mass cost (technically around 1.5 engineers)
Which is it?
Anaryl wrote:
Permit me to disagree. The only person who agrees with you entirely thinks that bombers should be buffed & has 4 games on FAF.
I speak for a large number of people, people who have simply given up posting in the forums due to the lack of productivity in discussions such as this.
You also seem to be quite quick to dismiss another player's opinion based on their experience, when previously you have argued that neither experience nor rating should matter in balance debates (I believe this is when you were rather low rated and had few games. Now that this is not the case, you seem to have changed your mind?)Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 25 Apr 2012, 23:52
]]>
