|
"Race X is not the most powerful, but it is the easiest."
I don't get this. You often see quotes like this lying around but I don't get how this can possibly be the case. It like defies basic intuition. Let's take a simple thought experiment, let's make injects "easier, but not more powerful", let's make injects autocast. A queen will automatically inject a close enough hatchery that is not spawning larvae when she has 50+ mana. Okay, what does this mean? Well, it means that the Zerg will now have some extra time available for other things, the creep spread of the Zerg will improve, the larva count will improve, the drop defence will improve, the mutas will harass better. Making any aspect of a race easier frees up the player's attention to do other things and do them better. Baneling control tends to improve if you don't have to look away mid battle to inject. There is no such thing as a race being "easy" but not "powerful", I don't get it. Both concepts go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Powerful is nothing but how easy it is to win.
In this case, if you play the ladder seriously you are always stretched to the very limits of your mechanical ability. I don't see how you can not be. If you weren't, you could up the ante, play a little bit better and win more often, your MMR would increase and you would eventually face players of who would be your match in your true final form. The nature of the MMR system ensures that you will always have to give everything to win unless you purposefully go smurf a couple of leagues below of course.
You often see people say "I faced someone of race X on the ladder and he or she didn't even have to work to win.", I don't get how that is possible, if he or she didn't have to work. Then he or she could just up the ante, work a bit harder, get a 70% winratio, increase MMR to a point where he or she does have to work to win. The only way you don't have to work to win on the ladder is if you purposefully tank MMR for whatever reason. Again, easy and powerful are the same thing. If the race meant one doesn't have to work. You can just work a bit, climb up the ladder and boom: Finish the season highlier, easy == more powerful.
I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete. Unless of course you believe that "Players of race X (my race, of course) are just better!", a fallacy which is trivially disproven by the fact that many top Koreans play all races pretty much as well as their main race. If Terrans were just better, then MC would not have a Terran offrace that is pretty much as good as his main Protoss. If Protosses were just better, then Taeja would not have a Protoss offrace that is pretty much as good as his main race. I find it hard to believe that one race would just attract "better" players, it's not true. Even a mid range foreign ladder hero like Minigun has shown that no race is harder than any other by mastering the other two races at a nigh even level as his main.
As a random player myself. All three races are very close to 50% and which one is statistically my best really differs from season to season and is most statistically significant. Last season I finished with Zerg at 52%, Protoss at 50% and Terran at 49%. The season before that it was Terran at 51% and Zerg and Protoss both at 50%.
What you just said above does rely on the assumption that the skill ceiling is infinite though
Yeah, it does. It makes the implicit assumption that if your race does not stretch you to the limits, there is always something more you can do with your APM to increase your win-factor. But the skill ceiling is practically infinite at the moment. All players are so far removed from it that anyone can stand to still improve. Let's assume that Zerg did not stretch pro players to their very limits and they were still winning with it. So go spread creep some better then? Creep spread isn't close to perfect at the moment. I think someone once demonstrated that with perfect creep spread by a bot you can get entire maps covered at the 5 minute mark. Seems like it would be pretty fucking impossible for aplayer at the current top of Protoss or Terran to compete against something like that. The reason Zergs aren't spreading creep better of course is because they are taxed to their limits already.
And make no mistake, "perfect macro" does not exist in isolation. GGTracker says I have low gm level spending quotient. The quintessential fallacy with these kind of metrics is that one's spending quotient is a function of the player one is playing against. Do you think I would not drop to platinum level spending quotient if I played against bomber or something? Bomber would stress my multitasking so much that my unspent would go up considerably. That's the fallacyof these metrics, it's not like they are a constant only depending on you in isolation. It's simply not fair to say "Ah, I have the same spending as iNcontrol playing against master league opponents!", iNcontrol has that spending when playing against grandmaster opponents and I wouldn't have that any more at that point.
That's why the skill ceiling is practically infinite. You can say "Ohh, but bomber is macroing close to perfect, the skill ceiling is almost reached", Bomber wouldn't macro close to perfect any more if he were to face himself from 2 years into the future. Future-Bomber would have such more advanced multitasking and better training than his past self that past Bomber would macro worse because of being taxed more.
  
|
Interesting post, but I don't agree with the statement "easy=powerful". There are many builds that are relatively easy to perform, but aren't as powerful as builds that are harder. Your example was of a mechanic, and sure, easier mechanics lead to more time to do other things - hence more powerful. But saying for instance that "Protoss is easier than Zerg" does absolutely make sense, not from an objective or statistical viewpoint perhaps, but from the notion that as all things are subject to interpretation (thanks Nietzsche) and are fundamentally different, people will view different elements of the game differently. Some people are better at running short distances, some at long distances, and the same applies to mechanics within and between the races. I, as a Zerg player, enjoy the mechanics of larvae injecting and making rounds of units rather than constant production. But starting with Zerg from scratch was very demanding for me as a lot of the builds are based on intuition and responding to the opponent. Comparing that to when I sit down with Protoss in "Banchmarker" and completely rip off an all in from a Code S player, it takes a few hours before the build is extremely solid, and I can perform that build on ladder without scouting (or with bare minimum at least), as I will be the aggressor in almost every case. Therefore, for me, Protoss all-ins I am doing right now are easier to do than the Zerg playstyle I use as I don't have to use as much focus on things I am bad at, which makes the build more fluent, but the Protoss macro style is much harder for me and I would struggle infinitely more as I consider the mechanics much harder. But when it comes to "powerful" i consider the Zerg style I use to be far superior to the all-ins I do, as I can always win the game with correct scouting/response/mechanics.
The notion of power=easy works on mechanics such as your example, but when it comes to other things, the two can be separated. Although, I will agree on that "race X requires less skill, and is therefore easier" is a fallacy, not because of power=easy, but because of personal attributes rendering every player to have a different view on what is "easy" and what is "skilled" or "hard".
Great post by the way, keep 'em coming!
|
thank you for posting this.
It's so retarted how Terran players claim that they are "harder" to play on top of being underpowered... That's just so stupid.
|
On July 08 2014 17:01 Zeweig wrote:
Interesting post, but I don't agree with the statement "easy=powerful". There are many builds that are relatively easy to perform, but aren't as powerful as builds that are harder. And this is what I don't buy, if the build was truly that easy you could in fact improve your execution of it and win with it anyway. Unless of course the build can't be further improved whatsoever and you already play against the skill ceiling. Of which I'm sceptical it's actually happening with any build.
[qupte]Your example was of a mechanic, and sure, easier mechanics lead to more time to do other things - hence more powerful. But saying for instance that "Protoss is easier than Zerg" does absolutely make sense, not from an objective or statistical viewpoint perhaps, but from the notion that as all things are subject to interpretation (thanks Nietzsche) and are fundamentally different, people will view different elements of the game differently. Some people are better at running short distances, some at long distances, and the same applies to mechanics within and between the races. I, as a Zerg player, enjoy the mechanics of larvae injecting and making rounds of units rather than constant production. But starting with Zerg from scratch was very demanding for me as a lot of the builds are based on intuition and responding to the opponent. Comparing that to when I sit down with Protoss in "Banchmarker" and completely rip off an all in from a Code S player, it takes a few hours before the build is extremely solid, and I can perform that build on ladder without scouting (or with bare minimum at least), as I will be the aggressor in almost every case. Therefore, for me, Protoss all-ins I am doing right now are easier to do than the Zerg playstyle I use as I don't have to use as much focus on things I am bad at, which makes the build more fluent, but the Protoss macro style is much harder for me and I would struggle infinitely more as I consider the mechanics much harder. But when it comes to "powerful" i consider the Zerg style I use to be far superior to the all-ins I do, as I can always win the game with correct scouting/response/mechanics.[/quote]And if that would be the case, then protoss would be more powerful. You could use that build to climb the ladder and gain a better ranking, therefore Protoss is more powerful.
|
On July 08 2014 17:13 Big J wrote:
thank you for posting this.
It's so retarted how Terran players claim that they are "harder" to play on top of being underpowered... That's just so stupid. Underpowered is the same thing as harder. What's stupid is when people say "Despite my race winning everything right now, it's still harder to use."
That does not make sense.
|
On July 08 2014 17:13 Big J wrote:
thank you for posting this.
It's so retarted how Terran players claim that they are "harder" to play on top of being underpowered... That's just so stupid.
Wait. That's exactly what OP is defending though? "Hard" means "Hard to win with", which pretty much means "Underpowered".
|
"It like defies basic intuition"
yes, nuff said! The argument is illogical in itself and i think it is pretty easy to see, that it is. Still gonna 5/5 this for pointing it ou in a rather smart way :>
|
On July 08 2014 17:37 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 17:13 Big J wrote:
thank you for posting this.
It's so retarted how Terran players claim that they are "harder" to play on top of being underpowered... That's just so stupid. Underpowered is the same thing as harder. What's stupid is when people say "Despite my race winning everything right now, it's still harder to use." That does not make sense.
On July 08 2014 17:47 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 17:13 Big J wrote:
thank you for posting this.
It's so retarted how Terran players claim that they are "harder" to play on top of being underpowered... That's just so stupid. Wait. That's exactly what OP is defending though? "Hard" means "Hard to win with", which pretty much means "Underpowered".
My problem is that you can claim the one or the other. You cannot claim both, since then you just claim the same thing twice. Well, I guess you could, but it would be redundant. And most people do not realize this and treat it like two different issues, when it is just plainly the same issue, once in the balance-related form and once in the oh-so-noble-fuck-all-other-races-for-not-being-so-skillfull-as-mine-I-need-to-work-so-much-harder form.
|
So the speed that I have progressed at my offrace protoss in BW is vastly faster than the speed I progressed at my offrace zerg. This is because protoss is a lot easier. Does this mean that zerg is a worse race? No it just means at lower levels protoss is a lot easier and a lot stronger.
|
So it's not the game's fault that I lose, it's mine?
|
I don't agree. The best analogy to use would be that there is a juggling contest between two people and the goal of the contest is to be able to juggle the most balls for ten minutes straight. One person is given 5 balls and one person is given 10. The person who is given five balls is allowed to drop 3 of their balls and still be in the contest whereas if the person who juggles 10 is not allowed to drop one or else they are disqualified. In this analogy it is obvious that the person who has been given 5 balls to juggle and is allowed to drop 3 of their balls in the 10 mins has a much easier task than the person who has to juggle 10 for ten mins, but if the person juggling ten does manage to accomplish that feat then they will win all the time. This means that the person juggling ten is technically overpowered because if they perform perfectly they will win all the time, but the person only juggling 5 has a much better chance of winning.
This is where the Protoss vs Terran argument stems, Protoss is allowed to drop a few balls and does not have as many to juggle to win but a Terran who is on top of their game is able to destroy a Protoss, but only if they are able to keep all their balls in the air.
|
On July 08 2014 20:11 Goofinator wrote:
I don't agree. The best analogy to use would be that there is a juggling contest between two people and the goal of the contest is to be able to juggle the most balls for ten minutes straight. One person is given 5 balls and one person is given 10. The person who is given five balls is allowed to drop 3 of their balls and still be in the contest whereas if the person who juggles 10 is not allowed to drop one or else they are disqualified. In this analogy it is obvious that the person who has been given 5 balls to juggle and is allowed to drop 3 of their balls in the 10 mins has a much easier task than the person who has to juggle 10 for ten mins, but if the person juggling ten does manage to accomplish that feat then they will win all the time. This means that the person juggling ten is technically overpowered because if they perform perfectly they will win all the time, but the person only juggling 5 has a much better chance of winning.
This is where the Protoss vs Terran argument stems, Protoss is allowed to drop a few balls and does not have as many to juggle to win but a Terran who is on top of their game is able to destroy a Protoss, but only if they are able to keep all their balls in the air.
This analogy is flawed simply because in the juggling scenario you introduce a skill ceiling. A point where you can't improve any more. If you juggle 5 balls, you can't improve any more no matter how good you are because you only have 5 balls.
I explicitly explained in the argument that the argument indeed relies on the skill ceiling of this game being for practical intends infinite and unattainable and there always been room to improve, your analogy removes that dogma.
|
On July 08 2014 16:30 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete. Unless of course you believe that "Players of race X (my race, of course) are just better!", a fallacy which is trivially disproven by the fact that many top Koreans play all races pretty much as well as their main race. If Terrans were just better, then MC would not have a Terran offrace that is pretty much as good as his main Protoss. If Protosses were just better, then Taeja would not have a Protoss offrace that is pretty much as good as his main race. I find it hard to believe that one race would just attract "better" players, it's not true. Even a mid range foreign ladder hero like Minigun has shown that no race is harder than any other by mastering the other two races at a nigh even level as his main.
Sorry, but Minigun's offrace was nowhere near his Protoss, even if you watched his one TvP near the end of his stream Minigun was so far behind and his opponent just did a really bad job of capitalizing on it. He was just playing against people way below his level.
Saying a race can be easier but not stronger isn't a fallacy either, actually in game design this is something you want to create in order to teach your players to get better. An one base all-in for example is (typically) easier to execute than a macro build, especially for how powerful it is, but a well executed macro build will almost always beat an all-in.
Here's an Extra Credits episode which explains the concept pretty well.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Technically there is a skill ceiling in starcraft, but the point is that it is just so stupidly high that no human could ever reach it. The idea with the juggling example was to make things easy to understand. Regardless, the point still remains that because the races are different, one player might have an easier time doing the tasks they need to do to win whereas another player has a harder time but if they were able to do all the tasks they would win all the time.
|
On July 08 2014 21:14 Goofinator wrote:
Technically there is a skill ceiling in starcraft, but the point is that it is just so stupidly high that no human could ever reach it. The idea with the juggling example was to make things easy to understand. Regardless, the point still remains that because the races are different, one player might have an easier time doing the tasks they need to do to win whereas another player has a harder time but if they were able to do all the tasks they would win all the time. And no one can do all the tasks because as you said, the skill ceiling is stupidly high.
|
The races are not symmetrical meaning that the reward to skill curves are not the same. This means that for a lower amount of skill at one point on the curve you can have a higher amount of reward than the same skill gets on the other, but as you move along the curve you can get to a point where you always have a lower amount of reward for your skill in comparison to the curve that initially got less reward for more skill. This means that you can have a race that is easier to get to a "competitive" skill level than another, but not be overpowered because at higher skill levels the other race would be overpowered. Watch the extra credits video, it explains it better than I can.
|
On July 08 2014 21:50 Goofinator wrote:
The races are not symmetrical meaning that the reward to skill curves are not the same. This means that for a lower amount of skill at one point on the curve you can have a higher amount of reward than the same skill gets on the other, but as you move along the curve you can get to a point where you always have a lower amount of reward for your skill in comparison to the curve that initially got less reward for more skill. This means that you can have a race that is easier to get to a "competitive" skill level than another, but not be overpowered because at higher skill levels the other race would be overpowered. Watch the extra credits video, it explains it better than I can.
Which is possible, likely happening, but most likely hardly significant in a game like starcraft, in which 95% of the tasks you do with each race (selecting, sending, toggling through selection hotkeys, toggling through production buildings, toggling through UI menues) are exactly the same.
It's not like one race is being played with a mouse and another with a keyboard.
|
I agree with you in a Starcraft context, but I don't think this necessarily holds true for other games.
Also, I think it's relevant that certain races or strategies may be easier for players at certain skill levels.
For example, in a lot of fighting games certain characters are considered "easier" because they have powerful moves or combos that are easily accessible to beginners, but these characters are not "better" because this advantage is erased at higher levels of play, and learning how to play more difficult or complicated characters allows you to reach a higher peak.
It may well be that Banelings are "easier" to use at lower levels because if you a-move then you will trade very effectively with a Terran who can't/doesn't know how to split, but that doesn't mean they are more powerful than Marines. Another example is people also talk about Terran being more "forgiving" of mistakes because you can call down Supply Depots and drop multiple Mules at a time, which compensates for poor macro.
|
On July 08 2014 21:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2014 21:50 Goofinator wrote:
The races are not symmetrical meaning that the reward to skill curves are not the same. This means that for a lower amount of skill at one point on the curve you can have a higher amount of reward than the same skill gets on the other, but as you move along the curve you can get to a point where you always have a lower amount of reward for your skill in comparison to the curve that initially got less reward for more skill. This means that you can have a race that is easier to get to a "competitive" skill level than another, but not be overpowered because at higher skill levels the other race would be overpowered. Watch the extra credits video, it explains it better than I can. Which is possible, likely happening, but most likely hardly significant in a game like starcraft, in which 95% of the tasks you do with each race (selecting, sending, toggling through selection hotkeys, toggling through production buildings, toggling through UI menues) are exactly the same. It's not like one race is being played with a mouse and another with a keyboard.
Of course 95% of the actions are the same, but those same actions have different effects and the reward/punishment of doing/not doing those those actions is different as well.
|
Let's create a new race, Zerg2. Zerg2 has autocast on queens, and creep puts alerts on the minimap when it detects enemy forces. However, Zerg2's units deal less damage than zerg units.
Zerg2 is easier to play than zerg. You won't be making a ton of macro mistakes, and you won't be caught off guard as easily. Less APM and less attention are required. Now, if I decide that the reduced damage is 95% of the damage zerg units deal, Zerg2 will be favored in zvz2. If I decide it's 20% of the damage zerg units deal, you won't ever win with it.
|
Can't believe it took so much text, even if I agree with what you are saying, more specifically the first paragraph. The whole problem lies in the definition of "easy". Both statements can describe an "easy race":
Mechanically easy race =/= race easy to win with
|
On July 08 2014 23:59 endy wrote:Can't believe it took so much text, even if I agree with what you are saying, more specifically the first paragraph. The whole problem lies in the definition of "easy". Both statements can describe an "easy race":
That's not his argument at all as far as I understand.
His point is that there is no mechanically easier race to begin with (in a balanced game), because you can always do something more.
So the only reason for "A being universally easier than B" can be that A is plainly better. Because no matter how good B plays, if A plays equally good, he should be able to match what B does and have human resources left over to do more than that.
|
Yes, the skill ceiling is effectively infinite in most complex multiplayer games. What you're ignoring is that an infinite range exists between 1 and 2 just the same as it does 1 and 100. Skill ceiling can exist within a varying scale in terms of reward, which is always balanced against the impact of decisions that are mechanically capped (build order, timings, unit comp).
What makes things complicated is the unknown unknowns in terms of what could be possible strategically but hasn't been discovered yet because player's aren't skill enough, but in terms of the known aspects of the game you can absolutely observe differences in the degree to which mechanical skill levels yield game advantages even though perfect computer-like play wouldn't be possible for anyone.
|
in SC2 given limited information defending is harder than attacking, period. Races that have more attack options and allins, ie zerg and protoss, vs terran in the early mid game make it so terran can just die. Terran can't really win in early mid game just because of limited options, every game has to be taken to 3 base + and general pressure throughout the game. This actually makes it so that terran is harder to play in the early mid game, while it is equal in mid to late game. Since the allins in sc2 are quite powerful, and you can just die instantly to some random build order which is much harder to defend against than to execute, terran gets the short end of the stick.
edit: evidenced by the poor representation of terran in any of the upper leagues.
|
On July 09 2014 02:23 biology]major wrote:
in SC2 given limited information defending is harder than attacking, period. Races that have more attack options and allins, ie zerg and protoss, vs terran in the early mid game make it so terran can just die. Terran can't really win in early mid game just because of limited options, every game has to be taken to 3 base + and general pressure throughout the game. This actually makes it so that terran is harder to play in the early mid game, while it is equal in mid to late game. Since the allins in sc2 are quite powerful, and you can just die instantly to some random build order which is much harder to defend against than to execute, terran gets the short end of the stick.
edit: evidenced by the poor representation of terran in any of the upper leagues. Rarely have I seen someone do such an excellent job of making it blatantly clear to reply without having read a fucking word of the OP.
|
On July 09 2014 03:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 02:23 biology]major wrote:
in SC2 given limited information defending is harder than attacking, period. Races that have more attack options and allins, ie zerg and protoss, vs terran in the early mid game make it so terran can just die. Terran can't really win in early mid game just because of limited options, every game has to be taken to 3 base + and general pressure throughout the game. This actually makes it so that terran is harder to play in the early mid game, while it is equal in mid to late game. Since the allins in sc2 are quite powerful, and you can just die instantly to some random build order which is much harder to defend against than to execute, terran gets the short end of the stick.
edit: evidenced by the poor representation of terran in any of the upper leagues. Rarely have I seen someone do such an excellent job of making it blatantly clear to reply without having read a fucking word of the OP.
i will admit I didn't read past the first paragraph, only because I am super busy atm, so my apologies. I just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject matter.
ok so after reading all of it, I feel the OP has simplified difficulty of a race solely into APM.
" I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race."
So I disagree with this point.
So let's create a scenario where there are 2 races. One race is designed in such a way to always be attacking, and the other is designed in such a way to always be defending. My argument is that the race that is designed to attack all the time has it "easier" because it forces the other player to react in terms of long term strategy and in the moment army movement, while at the same time obtaining more information than the other player. They are both using all of their APM to 100%, but the decisions being made by the offensive player are easier to make simply because he has more information. This is why when we see a 6/7 gate blink all in, it seems so easy for one side and so difficult for the other, not only is the build incredibly powerful, but the defending player has to scout properly, then he has to set up his defense, and then he has to execute it.
Now I think it is possible for both of these 2 races to be balanced, meaning the defending player can win 50% of the time. However you can also use my own logic against me and say that the attacking player will inherently win more. Who knows
|
On July 08 2014 22:54 Nebuchad wrote:
Let's create a new race, Zerg2. Zerg2 has autocast on queens, and creep puts alerts on the minimap when it detects enemy forces. However, Zerg2's units deal less damage than zerg units.
Zerg2 is easier to play than zerg. You won't be making a ton of macro mistakes, and you won't be caught off guard as easily. Less APM and less attention are required. Now, if I decide that the reduced damage is 95% of the damage zerg units deal, Zerg2 will be favored in zvz2. If I decide it's 20% of the damage zerg units deal, you won't ever win with it.
Wow, I should switch to Zerg2, it seems really strong.
|
On July 08 2014 18:25 puppykiller wrote:
So the speed that I have progressed at my offrace protoss in BW is vastly faster than the speed I progressed at my offrace zerg. This is because protoss is a lot easier. Does this mean that zerg is a worse race? No it just means at lower levels protoss is a lot easier and a lot stronger.
No, that does not necessarily follow. I'm not sure how you got to the bolded claim. It could be many other factors, i.e. perhaps protoss play is just more intuitive to you, or fits your natural play-style better.
While the bolded claim could be true, I'm not sure how you reached that claim and eliminated the others.
|
This is dumb. Let's just think of a blatant counter-example.
A tricycle is easier to ride than a motorcycle. A motorcycle takes a lot more skill and knowledge to operate. A motorcycle will basically never lose to a tricycle in a race. The tricycle is easier, the motorcycle is harder to operate. In spite of this, the motorcycle is stronger.
Any questions?
|
On July 09 2014 03:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 03:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 02:23 biology]major wrote:
in SC2 given limited information defending is harder than attacking, period. Races that have more attack options and allins, ie zerg and protoss, vs terran in the early mid game make it so terran can just die. Terran can't really win in early mid game just because of limited options, every game has to be taken to 3 base + and general pressure throughout the game. This actually makes it so that terran is harder to play in the early mid game, while it is equal in mid to late game. Since the allins in sc2 are quite powerful, and you can just die instantly to some random build order which is much harder to defend against than to execute, terran gets the short end of the stick.
edit: evidenced by the poor representation of terran in any of the upper leagues. Rarely have I seen someone do such an excellent job of making it blatantly clear to reply without having read a fucking word of the OP. i will admit I didn't read past the first paragraph, only because I am super busy atm, so my apologies. I just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject matter. ok so after reading all of it, I feel the OP has simplified difficulty of a race solely into APM. " I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race." So I disagree with this point. So let's create a scenario where there are 2 races. One race is designed in such a way to always be attacking, and the other is designed in such a way to always be defending. My argument is that the race that is designed to attack all the time has it "easier" because it forces the other player to react in terms of long term strategy and in the moment army movement, while at the same time obtaining more information than the other player. They are both using all of their APM to 100%, but the decisions being made by the offensive player are easier to make simply because he has more information. This is why when we see a 6/7 gate blink all in, it seems so easy for one side and so difficult for the other, not only is the build incredibly powerful, but the defending player has to scout properly, then he has to set up his defense, and then he has to execute it. Now I think it is possible for both of these 2 races to be balanced, meaning the defending player can win 50% of the time. However you can also use my own logic against me and say that the attacking player will inherently win more. Who knows I really don't see how you justify that when two players have a similar skill level. And it's super difficult for one player, that the winrate will be 50%, that just doesn't make sense.
Like I said, the only way you can salvage this idea is with the IdrA argument of "Yeah, but Protoss players are just dumb!" the excuse of "The players of my race just happen to all be better.", the existence of players of all races who at the very highest level have learnt to master their offraces to be almost as good as their main disputes this idea very much.
On July 09 2014 10:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
This is dumb. Let's just think of a blatant counter-example.
A tricycle is easier to ride than a motorcycle. A motorcycle takes a lot more skill and knowledge to operate. A motorcycle will basically never lose to a tricycle in a race. The tricycle is easier, the motorcycle is harder to operate. In spite of this, the motorcycle is stronger.
Any questions? Tricycle has a skill ceiling that's quickly reached, the entire argument explains why it relies on the assumption that the skill ceiling is infinite.
There comes a point when a tricycle just will not go any faster. The entire point of this article is that it relies on the fact that for all practical purposes there will never be a point where you don't play any better in StarCraft.
A tricycle just won't go faster than a motorcycle. The entire point is that in StarCraft you can beat anyone with any race as long as you're good enough. For every player who is super good, you can theoretically invent a player who is good enough to beat him or her with any race.
|
I can only conclude that you do not understand math, or the concept of a "skill/results" graph. (And yes that's even granting you your often (always?) unrealistic precondition of an infinite skill ceiling).
Here is a mathematical example that follows how people intend to use this language and satisfies your precondition:
Let's define a function F, and a function G (for two different races) that maps skill to results.
For Race A, f(x) = x + 5
For Race B, g(x) = x
Note that both race A and race B have an infinite skill ceiling.
Note that for all n in the set of real numbers, f(n) > g(n)
Mathematically this defines a strong example of the concept that Race A is easier to play than Race B
|
On July 09 2014 10:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
This is dumb. Let's just think of a blatant counter-example.
A tricycle is easier to ride than a motorcycle. A motorcycle takes a lot more skill and knowledge to operate. A motorcycle will basically never lose to a tricycle in a race. The tricycle is easier, the motorcycle is harder to operate. In spite of this, the motorcycle is stronger.
Any questions?
If this is serious...
|
On July 09 2014 12:32 Kashll wrote:
I can only conclude that you do not understand math, or the concept of a "skill/results" graph. (And yes that's even granting you your often (always?) unrealistic precondition of an infinite skill ceiling).
Here is a mathematical example that follows how people intend to use this language and satisfies your precondition:
Let's define a function F, and a function G (for two different races) that maps skill to results.
For Race A, f(x) = x + 5
For Race B, g(x) = x
Note that both race A and race B have an infinite skill ceiling.
Note that for all n in the set of real numbers, f(n) > g(n)
Mathematically this defines a strong example of the concept that Race A is easier to play than Race B
Now the astute reader may notice that this example does not correspond to the first quote in the original post, namely "Race X is not the most powerful, but it is the easiest."
I attend to address this point with another brief example, but first I would like to ask the reader, "Do you understand the concept(s) explained in my previously quoted post?" If not I would urge the reader to read the post again as well as brush up on their basic math concepts until they reach a level of conceptual understanding, as this is a necessary foundation for what is to follow.
Again we will define two functions, F and G, (for two different races) that maps skill to results.
For Race A: f(x) = x + 10
For Race B
g(x) =
{
x + 5 ; x < 1,337
x + 15 ; x >= 1,337
}
Note that both race A and race B have an infinite skill ceiling.
Note that for all n such that n < 1,337, f(n) > g(n)
Note that for all n such that n >= 1,337 f(n) < g(n)
Mathematically this defines a strong example of the concept that Race A is easier to play than race B, but less powerful.
|
On July 09 2014 12:41 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 10:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
This is dumb. Let's just think of a blatant counter-example.
A tricycle is easier to ride than a motorcycle. A motorcycle takes a lot more skill and knowledge to operate. A motorcycle will basically never lose to a tricycle in a race. The tricycle is easier, the motorcycle is harder to operate. In spite of this, the motorcycle is stronger.
Any questions? If this is serious...
Is there a flaw in the example or is OP's argument just disproven very easily?
P.S. Hi Kashll
|
On July 09 2014 11:17 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 10:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
This is dumb. Let's just think of a blatant counter-example.
A tricycle is easier to ride than a motorcycle. A motorcycle takes a lot more skill and knowledge to operate. A motorcycle will basically never lose to a tricycle in a race. The tricycle is easier, the motorcycle is harder to operate. In spite of this, the motorcycle is stronger.
Any questions? Tricycle has a skill ceiling that's quickly reached, the entire argument explains why it relies on the assumption that the skill ceiling is infinite. There comes a point when a tricycle just will not go any faster. The entire point of this article is that it relies on the fact that for all practical purposes there will never be a point where you don't play any better in StarCraft. A tricycle just won't go faster than a motorcycle. The entire point is that in StarCraft you can beat anyone with any race as long as you're good enough. For every player who is super good, you can theoretically invent a player who is good enough to beat him or her with any race.
If I was riding the tricycle and someone with insufficient knowledge of how to operate a motorcycle was riding the motorcycle, I would win. It's an exaggeration but the point still stands. The most powerful bike is not the easiest bike, and vice-versa.
There comes a point where the motorcycle will not go any faster, just as there comes a point where the tricycle will not go any faster. Both the motorcycle and the tricycle have a finite skill ceiling, just as a human playing Starcraft is limited by the speed of their body and the input format and other factors. Skill ceiling cannot be "infinite" by the input device and the laws of physics.
And I don't see how you came to the conclusion that for every player there can theoretically be a better player who can beat them with any race. What if one race is simply stronger than the others? I'm inclined to think that this is the case, unless Blizzard made a 100% perfectly balanced 3 race game. Shit, even chess isn't balanced. At some point I'm 100% certain that skill improvements will not change the outcome of a given race vs race matchup on a given map.
Obviously there has to be a limitation to the "skill ceiling" of a race because of the laws of physics on the input. Moreover, even if a player was capable of executing perfect micro/macro on every unit/building in the game, a ceiling would still exist, limited by the movement rate/attack speed/build speed of the units.
And for that, see Kashll's posts. This argument is dumb. Of course something can be easier yet weaker.
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture?
|
On July 09 2014 12:32 Kashll wrote:
I can only conclude that you do not understand math, or the concept of a "skill/results" graph. (And yes that's even granting you your often (always?) unrealistic precondition of an infinite skill ceiling).
Here is a mathematical example that follows how people intend to use this language and satisfies your precondition:
Let's define a function F, and a function G (for two different races) that maps skill to results.
For Race A, f(x) = x + 5
For Race B, g(x) = x
Note that both race A and race B have an infinite skill ceiling.
Note that for all n in the set of real numbers, f(n) > g(n)
Mathematically this defines a strong example of the concept that Race A is easier to play than Race B Ignoring the ridiculousness of quantifying skill so simply. Race A in this sense has better results and is thus overpowered. Thereby demonstrating my point that there is no such thing as "easier to play, yet weaker."
|
On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 11:17 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 10:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
This is dumb. Let's just think of a blatant counter-example.
A tricycle is easier to ride than a motorcycle. A motorcycle takes a lot more skill and knowledge to operate. A motorcycle will basically never lose to a tricycle in a race. The tricycle is easier, the motorcycle is harder to operate. In spite of this, the motorcycle is stronger.
Any questions? Tricycle has a skill ceiling that's quickly reached, the entire argument explains why it relies on the assumption that the skill ceiling is infinite. There comes a point when a tricycle just will not go any faster. The entire point of this article is that it relies on the fact that for all practical purposes there will never be a point where you don't play any better in StarCraft. A tricycle just won't go faster than a motorcycle. The entire point is that in StarCraft you can beat anyone with any race as long as you're good enough. For every player who is super good, you can theoretically invent a player who is good enough to beat him or her with any race. If I was riding the tricycle and someone with insufficient knowledge of how to operate a motorcycle was riding the motorcycle, I would win. It's an exaggeration but the point still stands. The most powerful bike is not the easiest bike, and vice-versa. And that's immaterial to my point.
My point relies on the assumption that for every theoretical player of race X, there is a theoretical player of race Y that can beat him or her.
What you formality is: For some theoretical player of race X, there is a theoretical player of race Y that can beat him or her.
There are people who drive motorcycles so well that it is no longer humanly possible to beat them on a tricycle, many such people in fact. There is no Zerg player for which you can't invent a theoretical Terran/Protoss player that can beat him or her.
There comes a point where the motorcycle will not go any faster, just as there comes a point where the tricycle will not go any faster. Both the motorcycle and the tricycle have a finite skill ceiling, just as a human playing Starcraft is limited by the speed of their body and the input format and other factors. Skill ceiling cannot be "infinite" by the input device and the laws of physics. It cannot be infinite in parallel games like drag racing where you do not influence your opponent. StarCraft however is not a parallel game but a game that allows you to hinder and influence your opponent. The skill ceiling will always be theoretically infinite in a game that allows this. If your opponent plays "perfect" and doesn't miss a beat with macro you can improve and disrupt your opponent's play in StarCraft such that this no longer happens. You can't do this with racing. If your opponent races the track optimally there is nothing you can do to alter that.
And I don't see how you came to the conclusion that for every player there can theoretically be a better player who can beat them with any race. What if one race is simply stronger than the others? I'm inclined to think that this is the case, unless Blizzard made a 100% perfectly balanced 3 race game. Shit, even chess isn't balanced. At some point I'm 100% certain that skill improvements will not change the outcome of a given race vs race matchup on a given map. Even if a race is stronger, even if the game is grossly imbalanced. You can always invent this theoretical superplayer that can overcome the balance no matter how much it is favoured against him or her.
Obviously there has to be a limitation to the "skill ceiling" of a race because of the laws of physics on the input. Moreover, even if a player was capable of executing perfect micro/macro on every unit/building in the game, a ceiling would still exist, limited by the movement rate/attack speed/build speed of the units. See the point about hindrance. StarCraft is not a parallel game like marathons or darts.
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing.
|
On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing.
No, he just showed the club is easier (to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results.
So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun, so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal.
|
To the OP:
Basically I disagree with you on the idea that the game is so immaculately balanced that someone playing a race at the highest level of possible play (like, computer controls each action of each unit and building "perfectly") will always be able to be outplayed by some other player.
I think that there is a limit to how well a race can be played. Like, if neither perfect computer player makes a SINGLE mistake, one person will still win. That comes down to the inherent imbalance in races on maps.
Suggesting that there's a limitless ceiling is just silly. All players are hard limited by multiple factors including map, distance, game timings, movespeed, etc. Skill has no effect on how fast a marine spawns. Sure, Starcraft and Chess and Go and other games are reasonably balanced, but asserting that there's always a better way to play is making a LOT of baseless assumptions that are very easily disproved.
|
About the examples:
- Trycycle vs Motorcycle isn't balanced, even though you may invoke that there is some theoretically unreachable skill ceiling. (shown by the existance of motorsports)
- Same goes for Kashll's example, it's not balanced as he found out himself.
- But even his modified example isn't balanced for a given n=/=1,337. So for the functions to be balanced, we need to ask about their domains. For example, if the highest reached n is 1, it is clearly imbalanced in the favor of f. If however the average n is 5, it is imbalanced towards g.
What we could however include in this model is that for any given player of these functions, anytime he plays he gets assigned a randomly chosen n from -infinity to infinity (this domain could obviously vary. We could also make it [0;2674]). This would indeed balance our game, however this is a very bad modelling of a certain level of Starcraft players.
Given a certain skill level, you'd rather play around 2.5 everygame (e.g. a progamer) or 1.0 (e.g. a silver leaguer). So regardless of the league choice we make, we would plainly have imbalance in the one or other way.
A much better way to model (a balanced) Starcraft is imo if we take functions f and g with a domain of [0;10000] like that:
T(x) = x+1 for x in [n;n+0.5]; n being a natural
T(x) = x-1 else
Z(x) = x+2 for x in [n+0.5;n+1]; n being a natural
Z(x) = x-2 else
P(x) = x+1
This is somewhat similar to Kashll's example, but given how the skill/the metagame - these kinds of things modelled by n - progresses, a player may have a natural advantage for a periode of time. For a low enough x for all players, hence x<<10000 and x ever growing (metagame, skill progression) and being "randomly" assigned from a number +/- from your skill level, this is indeed a balanced game. Not exactly at every level, but close to your level you should be able to find another level where you may not have a disadvantage.
|
On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot.
So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh.
so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things.
Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove.
And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
In the event that despite all that, it would still be 50/50, in that case Protoss would require via assymetric balance to do that for whatever hypothetical reason. And then the game is both balanced, and both races are as easy as the other.
The skill ceiling of a gun and club isn't infinite by the way, because unlike StarCraft, there isn't always something extra you could do.
|
EVEN IF we take the ridiculous assumption that there is an infinite ceiling for skill, there's still problems with your argument. It's not hard to imagine a race that is extremely complicated to play but is overwhelmingly stronger than another race when played at a sufficiently high level.
We'll use Starcraft as an example.
Imagine that only with perfect micro, at a certain saturation of marines, it becomes impossible for a Zerg player to win a trade given equal resources (time, minerals, gas, etc.). Now, this would be very hard or impossible to pull off for a human. A computer, however, would be able to accomplish this because it can react instantaneously. Even with perfect zergling play, the Zerg player would be overwhelmingly crushed.
The Terran player has a higher skill threshold needed, but is in the end more powerful after that point has been reached. It is "harder" for the Terran to win by our standards, but they are more powerful when played above a certain skill level which must be reached given your ridiculous conditions. I would say that Zerg is "easier" to play because the skill involved doesn't make as much of a difference, but that Terran is "stronger".
Basically, the problem with your entire argument comes down to:
1) There isn't an infinite skill ceiling.
and
2) Even if there was, the likelihood of this game being balanced at an extreme level is ridiculous.
|
On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things.
But at some level doing more things simply has no effect on the game. That's why your idea that "there is always a theoretical player who can beat someone using another race" is flawed.
Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove.
And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
The problem here is that you're assuming that the less inputs you have to make, the more likely it is that you will win a fight. That's wrong. For example, it's possible for a single marine to beat a Lurker 1v1 in Brood War. That shit is HARD, but a perfect player who's able to do that while maintaining perfect macro and microing other units would be able to do it.
In the event that despite all that, it would still be 50/50, in that case Protoss would require via assymetric balance to do that for whatever hypothetical reason. And then the game is both balanced, and both races are as easy as the other.
What happens when the chances are NOT 50/50 and you happen to actually lose because Zealots simply die to a sufficient amount of Marines?
The skill ceiling of a gun and club isn't infinite by the way, because unlike StarCraft, there isn't always something extra you could do.
There isn't ALWAYS something more you can do in Starcraft. For example, let's say it takes 1000 apm to split perfectly and instantly queue up a peon. Would having 10000000000000 APM change anything about that?
No, it wouldn't.
|
On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. Yeh. Show nested quote +so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it.
So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful.
|
On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard.
|
On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard.
This hypothetical Protoss is much easier to play as you can macro like a pro with no effort, have a perfect micro with no effort as it's automated. And of course, as you rightfully said, those advantages do not compensate for the halved DPS, which is the very reason the race less powerful that the real Protoss. Hence I just showed that easier does not mean more powerful.
So once again, you are just using a different definition of "easy", yours being "easy to win" while mine is "easy to use".
I think that the basis for a proper debate is to clearly define each term used. Instead you just called out people for using a fallacy while all that happened is that they were using a different definition of easy from yours.
Also if your definition of a powerful race is a race that is easy to win with, and your definition of easy is easy to win with, which is basically the same as your definition of powerful, then I don't think a discussion even needs to take place ^^
|
On July 09 2014 19:05 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. This hypothetical Protoss is much easier to play as you can macro like a pro with no effort, have a perfect micro with no effort as it's automated. The objectiv eof the game is not to have perfect micro or perfect macro, the objective of the game is to win. This is like the quintessential IdrA fallacy. Believing "Oh, I lost, but I stilled played better because I had a larger army and my opponent won only because he or she did not play in the True One Way this game is supposed to be played."
I think that the basis for a proper debate is to clearly define each term used. Instead you just called out people for using a fallacy while all that happened is that they were using a different definition of easy from yours.
I concur actually, you made me realize that quite possibly the people who disagree when they say "easy to play" they indeed mean such medial goals as "building a large army" or whatever. I thought we moved past that mentality since the WoL beta when some people were still repping it, I was pretty sure that everyone now agreed that a win is a win and IdrA was the last person still believing in this nonsense of "You only won because you played badly."
I mean, otherwise you can set yourself all sorts of fictive goals. Like I said "Terran is easy because it's the easiest race to lift buildings with, Protoss and Zerg can't lift buildings, it's so hard with them!", this is the essence of an assymetrically balanced game. Zerg does have an easier time indeed to make a larger army than Terran, but the objective of the game is not to have a larger army. It's to destroy all your opponent's buildings.
Let's put it like this, as a random player, my own experience is that it's the easiest to keep your money low with T, and with Z/P some-what even, this seems to reflect pro games where P and Z are often floating large amounts of minerals. Z obviously produces in waves so it's often okay to do so. And the practice is supported by the obvious theory that Terran does not have to look away to produce. I find it considerably more difficult to macro during a battle with Protoss than with Terran which is obvious because Protoss needs to look away. Does this make Protoss harder than Terran? Absolutely not. Because I also find that since David Kim has at least decently kept the game around 50-50 that I can still win with 900 minerals floating during various points of the game in PvT, but if I do that in TvP I will almost always die. Obviously this dates back to the WoL beta when Terran was really good, probably due to this because they were easier to macro, and therefore more powerful. So, Blizzard stepped in and nerfed a lot of raw attack values of Terran, buffed some Protoss and Zerg structures and the winrate got 50/50 again. And to this day, we're still in a situation that it is easier with Terran to keep your money low, but not easier to win. If all three races gained automated macro that is airtight, this would be a huge nerf to Terran I feel. This would make all three races easier, but Z/P more easier than T. Thereby essentially nerfing Terran. If both players keep their money very low, I feel P/Z should in theory beat Terran because I guess Terran units are worse a little bit. But it's harder to keep your money low with those races, so it's balanced out.
|
On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard.
My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage.
I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it.
|
On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it.
Then how is this a counterexample?
The premises are
-) balanced game
-) infinite skill ceiling
wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises...
|
On July 09 2014 19:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I concur actually, you made me realize that quite possibly the people who disagree when they say "easy to play" they indeed mean such medial goals as "building a large army" or whatever. I thought we moved past that mentality since the WoL beta when some people were still repping it, I was pretty sure that everyone now agreed that a win is a win and IdrA was the last person still believing in this nonsense of "You only won because you played badly."
I mean, otherwise you can set yourself all sorts of fictive goals. Like I said "Terran is easy because it's the easiest race to lift buildings with, Protoss and Zerg can't lift buildings, it's so hard with them!", this is the essence of an assymetrically balanced game. Zerg does have an easier time indeed to make a larger army than Terran, but the objective of the game is not to have a larger army. It's to destroy all your opponent's buildings.
So, you wrote this entire blog to say that you define strength as ease? As in the races that are better at winning games are stronger, and that makes them by definition easier?
Wow, that's retarded.
|
On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises...
THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE
THAT'S THE POINT
|
On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT
No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises.
|
On July 09 2014 19:24 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:
I concur actually, you made me realize that quite possibly the people who disagree when they say "easy to play" they indeed mean such medial goals as "building a large army" or whatever. I thought we moved past that mentality since the WoL beta when some people were still repping it, I was pretty sure that everyone now agreed that a win is a win and IdrA was the last person still believing in this nonsense of "You only won because you played badly."
I mean, otherwise you can set yourself all sorts of fictive goals. Like I said "Terran is easy because it's the easiest race to lift buildings with, Protoss and Zerg can't lift buildings, it's so hard with them!", this is the essence of an assymetrically balanced game. Zerg does have an easier time indeed to make a larger army than Terran, but the objective of the game is not to have a larger army. It's to destroy all your opponent's buildings. So, you wrote this entire blog to say that you define strength as ease? As in the races that are better at winning games are stronger, and that makes them by definition easier? Wow, that's retarded. Oh, so you are indeed one of those people who actually believes that there are some magical "sub goals" to this game like "getting a large army" or "microing perfectly"?
|
On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 14:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Let's try again: A club has an infinite skill ceiling. A gun has an infinite skill ceiling. The club is easier to operate than the gun.
Get the picture? And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises.
I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing.
Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is.
|
On July 09 2014 19:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 16:54 SiskosGoatee wrote:
[quote]
And a gun is overpowered compared to a club? Your example only serves to aid to my point that easier and more powerful are the same thing. No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises. I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing. Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is.
I think you kind of have and have to for this theory to work
I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete.
If the game isn't balanced, it is indeed "easier" to win with a certain race. An equally skilled person has to work less to match a player of an underpowered race, which I think is what we should imply as the definition of "easy" here.
|
On July 09 2014 19:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 17:20 endy wrote:
[quote]
No, he just showed the club is easier ([to manipulate) yet the gun is more powerful. Just like the race that is the easiest to use is not necessarily the one that will get the better results. That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot. So you will say that it's easier to kill someone with a gun Yeh. so I will point you to my post above about the definition of "easy", because clearly that's the source of disagreement here.
To ZERG_RUSSIAN, easy = easy to manipulate/use/choose applicable verb for Gun/Starcraft race/Tricycle/ ...
To you, easy = easy to win a game/kill/ whatever is the final goal. Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things. Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove. And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful. That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises. I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing. Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is. I think you kind of have and have to for this theory to work Show nested quote +I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete. If the game isn't balanced, it is indeed "easier" to win with a certain race. An equally skilled person has to work less to match a player of an underpowered race, which I think is what we should imply as the definition of "easy" here. Yeah, but my point isn't that a race can't be easy, my point is that easy and overpowered are one and the same.
THat a race can't be "easy" but "less powerful"
unless of course you're IdrA and you believe the objective of the game is to build a large army and play it in the One True Way rather than winning.
|
On July 09 2014 20:08 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2014 19:59 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:52 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 19:30 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:25 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 19:24 Big J wrote:On July 09 2014 19:21 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On July 09 2014 18:44 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 09 2014 18:10 endy wrote:On July 09 2014 17:42 SiskosGoatee wrote:
[quote]That's nonsense then and I misread. Even a retard with a gun given sufficient distance should beat someone with a club. You'd have to throw the club and aim well to hit. The guy with the gun can just shoot.
[quote]Yeh.
[quote]Of course, like I said, if a race is just easy to manipulate, that means you have more time to do other things.
Let's say for sake of argument that Protoss would indeed just be "amove" and you'd win, tha s easy right? Great, so that means that when I play protoss I'm not even going to watch the battle, while I amove and Terran/Zerg micro like mofos I'm multitasking all over the place, zealot runby hero, oracle killing workers there, dts in your base, void rays killing your add ons there all while not missing any macro because my army is super easy, I can just amove.
And what would happen then is that I would always win of course, easy -> more powerful.
That's just a single example where easy => more powerful. A example is not enough to prove something, but a counter-example is enough to disprove it. So instead of using guns or motorcycles analogies, how about having a hypothetical race that is a copy of Protoss, but has automatic perfect micro, and tons of macro assistance. However, each unit has its DPS halved. This race is easier to play, but less powerful. So if we follow ZERG_RUSSIAN's definition of easy = easy to manipulate, then easy does not mean powerful. How is this hypothetical protoss easier to play? You now have to work your arse of with multitasking to even stand a chance. This race hypothetical protoss is super hard to still win with. Automated macro doesn't nearly compensate enough for half dps, you have to be at a thousand places at once with your new freed up apm to still stand a chance. You have to work super hard. My, are you bad at reading. He said you have automatic perfect micro and macro. Like, to take it to an extreme, let's say that you didn't have to do ANYTHING and the hypothetical protoss would play itself perfectly for you, but its units still did half damage. You are literally expending no energy and making no effort and it plays perfectly. But it still loses because it does half damage. I don't know how you can make the argument that it's stronger because it's easier to play in this situation. Your entire argument is retarded and I'm beginning to suspect that you're just not smart enough to grasp the examples we're giving you, because my 8 year old autistic cousin can probably understand this and you're struggling heavily with it. Then how is this a counterexample? The premises are -) balanced game -) infinite skill ceiling wow, he constructed an instance in which you are automatically at the skill ceiling and automatically worse than an average player. Which is not a counterexample for the theory, since it doesn't follow its premises... THE GAME IS NOT BALANCED AND THE SKILL CEILING IS NOT INFINITE THAT'S THE POINT No it's plainly not what he wanted to say, given how he understands what it means to disprove a theory with a counterexample following its premises. I didn't actually assume a balanced game by th eway, I in fact said I never claimed it is. I'm just saying that easy and more powerful are the same thing. Even if the skill ceiling is not infinite, it doesn't matter, since no one is closer to it anyway. For practical purposes it is. I think you kind of have and have to for this theory to work I'm not claiming that a race can't be overpowered. I'm just saying that the concept of not being overpowered, but being easy does not make sense. If a race is easy it is more powerful. On the assumption that the game is balanced (I am not saying that assumption is true) every race is as easy as every other race. Everyone will have to be stretched to the limits to the compete. If the game isn't balanced, it is indeed "easier" to win with a certain race. An equally skilled person has to work less to match a player of an underpowered race, which I think is what we should imply as the definition of "easy" here. Yeah, but my point isn't that a race can't be easy, my point is that easy and overpowered are one and the same. THat a race can't be "easy" but "less powerful" unless of course you're IdrA and you believe the objective of the game is to build a large army and play it in the One True Way rather than winning.
yup, I get that. 
|
cute how you're agreeing with each other and ignoring the opposing side. A true debate.
|
Can't we agree on something like:
- Strong: easy to win with
- Easy: easy to learn to play, easy to master
Most people use it like that, and it makes sense.
|
On July 09 2014 23:40 sAsImre wrote:
cute how you're agreeing with each other and ignoring the opposing side. A true debate.
Which argument did I ignore?
On July 10 2014 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:
Can't we agree on something like:
- Strong: easy to win with
- Easy: easy to learn to play, easy to master
Most people use it like that, and it makes sense.
Define play and master.
Because I think you will inevitably have to define them - or the follow up words you describe them with - through something like:
- play: you can use the tool in a way that makes sense*
- master: you can use it in a way that significantly increases your chance to win with it
*making sense: helps you achieving the games' goals*
*the games goals: winning
At the end of the day you have to describe it through what you need to achieve with it.
E.g.: There is absolutly no benefit in being able to be the fastests overlord dancer in the game, regardless of being incredibly hard mechanically. So despite being able to master this discipline, it does not help you with achieving your goals, so it does not make Zerg harder to play.
|
On July 08 2014 21:14 Goofinator wrote:
Technically there is a skill ceiling in starcraft, but the point is that it is just so stupidly high that no human could ever reach it. The idea with the juggling example was to make things easy to understand. Regardless, the point still remains that because the races are different, one player might have an easier time doing the tasks they need to do to win whereas another player has a harder time but if they were able to do all the tasks they would win all the time.
Stop propagating this nonsense. There are rock-paper-scissors type interactions in starcraft, and rock-paper-scissors is a fundamentally un-masterable game. Starcraft (and essentially every multiplayer game with interactions with your opponents that's not incredibly simplistic) fundamentally has no skill ceiling, by design.
And yes, this means that games that are thought of as having a "low skill ceiling" like cod or hearthstone, are in fact, infinitely difficult and un-masterable. It doesn't mean they are good, but it does mean you cannot ever reach a skill ceiling.
|
On July 10 2014 00:23 Big J wrote:Define play and master. Because I think you will inevitably have to define them - or the follow up words you describe them with - through something like: - play: you can use the tool in a way that makes sense* - master: you can use it in a way that significantly increases your chance to win with it *making sense: helps you achieving the games' goals* *the games goals: winning At the end of the day you have to describe it through what you need to achieve with it. E.g.: There is absolutly no benefit in being able to be the fastests overlord dancer in the game, regardless of being incredibly hard mechanically. So despite being able to master this discipline, it does not help you with achieving your goals, so it does not make Zerg harder to play.
To say something like that you have to assume that every strategy is equally hard to pull off, which can't really be argued.
If I discover a build that gives me 80% winrate, the build will be both strong and easy, because if I can execute it, most people can.
If someone discovers a build that gives 80% winrate to people who have 360 apm and excellent multitasking and micro, the build will still be strong, because it will give some people 80% winrate. Still you can't say it's easy to do. Sure, it makes the game easy for the people who can execute it, but that's not what we mean by easy in this context.
|
On July 10 2014 01:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2014 00:23 Big J wrote:Define play and master. Because I think you will inevitably have to define them - or the follow up words you describe them with - through something like: - play: you can use the tool in a way that makes sense* - master: you can use it in a way that significantly increases your chance to win with it *making sense: helps you achieving the games' goals* *the games goals: winning At the end of the day you have to describe it through what you need to achieve with it. E.g.: There is absolutly no benefit in being able to be the fastests overlord dancer in the game, regardless of being incredibly hard mechanically. So despite being able to master this discipline, it does not help you with achieving your goals, so it does not make Zerg harder to play. To say something like that you have to assume that every strategy is equally hard to pull off, which can't really be argued. If I discover a build that gives me 80% winrate, the build will be both strong and easy, because if I can execute it, most people can. If someone discovers a build that gives 80% winrate to people who have 360 apm and excellent multitasking and micro, the build will still be strong, because it will give some people 80% winrate. Still you can't say it's easy to do. Sure, it makes the game easy for the people who can execute it, but that's not what we mean by easy in this context.
In that second case, the build will be easy for > 360APM and hard for others. Which to me is the same as the build being too powerful on a high level and weaker below. That does not contradict each other. But when discussing that build, you have to make clear that it is over-/underpowered at a certain level. Unlike e.g. Terran currently, which is umderpowered at most/all levels.
PS: I dont believe such dynamics to that degree exist in Starcraft. With my main indicator for that being that when a race e.g. Terran was strong on Korean level, you'd usually find strong Terran foreigners and a higer representation in the upper leagues. And when weak vis-verca. (Think 2010-11 vs 2012 or 2014)
Other example would be Zerg (2010-11 vs 2012-14)
Strong racial performances seem to radiate into all leagues/skilllevels.
|
It's mostly semantics I think. Like I said, you can say the build makes the game easy for the people who can execute it. If that's what you mean by ease, then you're right that ease=power. I would use "easy" in the context of execution, in which case it obviously doesn't mean the same thing as "strong". I think most people understand "easy" the same way I do, but I guess I could be wrong.
|
When I played SC2, I played Protoss and always felt like it was the most intuitive of the 3 races. And yet I felt like Terran was easier. In SCBW which I played a lot more, I felt like Protoss was both more intuitive and easier (and I played Protoss back then too). Always felt like Zerg was harder and the least intuitive if you want your build to line up and to make sense. I can't explain it but that's just how I felt about it.
But all those gut feelings are just about how easy it is to play and to sync in a vacuum, and I always felt like if you play at even a semi-decent level, they're all basically equally difficult to play properly. You might say that larva inject is hard to master and warping units at pylons is easy and stupid, but really once you've played the game for a while, the mistakes that the players of a given level make kind of average out, so Protoss is not disproportionately easy to play properly. It's easy to play for grandmas provided they'll play against other grandmas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
