| Forum Index > Closed |
|
itmeJP
United States1101 Posts
On June 25 2010 02:27 numberThirtyOne wrote: You can indeed, however the RSS currently only has up through episode 5. Any word on when it will be added, JP? Thanks for another show. <3 these. I forgot to add it to the RSS feed last night. It is now added. I'm also glad SOMEONE finally noticed the JPop genre -- I've been doing that now for 2 years! | ||
|
Setz3R
United States455 Posts
| ||
|
nemahsys
Canada457 Posts
| ||
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
| ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
On June 25 2010 03:56 nemahsys wrote: Its really hard to listen to artosis discuss things with people. He gives his opinion and then if anyone disagrees with him he just brushes it aside, even if its the opinion of very good players like day9 and tlo. Also hearing that any mech terran who loses to a zerg is actually just a noob made me laugh, thats a pretty weak defense imo. Yeah, we could dedicate an entire thread on TL for an Artosis intervention but I don't think he'd even look at it. | ||
|
eXeel
Denmark62 Posts
On June 24 2010 22:51 Takkara wrote: Thanks JP it was a great podcast. Love this series. I really liked the TvZ conversation between TLO and Artosis. It was very insightful, very respectful, and very engaging. I almost feel like there's an idea for a new show entirely based on that. Some sort of shorter-length debate show. Get one pro or commentator to represent either side of a major issue and let them duke it out in every way. As long as the moderator keeps it civil, it could be really interesting. That's a positive suggestion indeed. I liked the discussion too and was thrilled when I read the question here. The only problem is that TLO and Artosis wasn't challenged more on their opinions. From Day9 and the interviewer. When Artosis said TLO couldn't have an opinion on ZvT, since he wins 90% of the matchups on either side, I got so annoyed... If TLO can win with both, how can it be imbalanced? Unless he is playing worse opponents than Artosis. It just proves that SOME can win. With the right mindset and strategy  | ||
TrueRedemption
United States313 Posts
I noticed at the end of the podcast you said something to the effect of see you next week, are there plans for next week I didn't catch or was that more of an unconscious send off? =P | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
When Artosis said TLO couldn't have an opinion on ZvT, since he wins 90% of the matchups on either side, I got so annoyed... If TLO can win with both, how can it be imbalanced? Unless he is playing worse opponents than Artosis. He is saying that if your winrate is 90% of your games then the people you play against dont have optimal builds. in addition to the the fact that you cant base your argument on winrate alone its about QUALITY of players that you strategise and play with. TLO is good and a giant amongst european mice but the asian bumpersticker`s on artosis`s and Idras back is just the better feedback. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 25 2010 05:10 Madkipz wrote: He is saying that if your winrate is 90% of your games then the people you play against dont have optimal builds. in addition to the the fact that you cant base your argument on winrate alone its about QUALITY of players that you strategise and play with. TLO is good and a giant amongst european mice but the asian bumpersticker`s on artosis`s and Idras back is just the better feedback. Which is mostly true, but it's a poor trump card. Why bother coming to a podcast discussion if you can just whip out the "I play on Asia" trump card whenever someone disagrees with your opinion? I don't think that's exactly what Artosis was doing, and I think he was far more fair than that throughout the discussion. TLO has a ton of knowledge about the game mechanics. I'd venture to guess he may be the most successful super-genius of SC2 abilities. Even if his mechanics aren't at a high enough level to dominate quite thoroughly, no one will beat him in understanding of the game. So it's a little rude to just dismiss him as not being able to comment on balance because his competition isn't high enough. I think TLO did the most fair thing he could do which is to offer to play Idra and Artosis as Zerg against their Terran mech to show his strategies. I guess that way we both see new strategies get developed and they can settle their debate. | ||
|
Tabbris
Bangladesh2839 Posts
On June 25 2010 05:17 Takkara wrote: Which is mostly true, but it's a poor trump card. Why bother coming to a podcast discussion if you can just whip out the "I play on Asia" trump card whenever someone disagrees with your opinion? I don't think that's exactly what Artosis was doing, and I think he was far more fair than that throughout the discussion. TLO has a ton of knowledge about the game mechanics. I'd venture to guess he may be the most successful super-genius of SC2 abilities. Even if his mechanics aren't at a high enough level to dominate quite thoroughly, no one will beat him in understanding of the game. So it's a little rude to just dismiss him as not being able to comment on balance because his competition isn't high enough. I think TLO did the most fair thing he could do which is to offer to play Idra and Artosis as Zerg against their Terran mech to show his strategies. I guess that way we both see new strategies get developed and they can settle their debate. Artosis made that comment for Desert Oasis only! He was talking about map balance. Talking about map balance when you 90% with both races on that map is plain silly. | ||
|
kar1181
United Kingdom515 Posts
| ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 25 2010 05:36 kar1181 wrote: Artosis was completely right on that call. I think it's just the way he comes across that makes it seem really harsh. But yeah, in a balanced matchup you're winning 50% of the time. If you're winning 90% of the time, then clearly your opponents aren't good enough, and so balance is hard to talk about. This line of reasoning can be applied to top members of any ladder who have significantly higher than 50% win ratio. It's dangerously close to saying "You win too much so your opinion on balance is invalid." Or even, "You win way more than I win, so your opponents are too weak, and your opinion on balance is invalid." It's a non-starter. You can't have productive conversations if you want to play that card. It's not like TLO is a slouch and Artosis needs to dress him down. I think TLO's qualifications are pretty clear at this point. I think his opinions matter no matter what ladder he plays on. That doesn't mean he's always right, but he deserves a spot at the table, obviously. I totally get where Artosis was going. I really understand what he's trying to say about the relative strength of Euro vs Asian ladder participants. But like some others have said, it was a bit of a rude way of putting it, is all. I'm on record as saying that overall I thought their conversation was very productive and respectful. But like others have said, that one point missed a little bit. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
f0rk
England172 Posts
Artosis : "Well TvP was hard in BW" Is he suggesting if a match up is skewed in BW, it's ok for it to be the same in SC2? If it was ok for something to be "hard" in BW, surely his ZvT woes are acceptable in SC2. This 'me and idra' bs is so dumb. I wonder how balanced their conversations are, does Artosis just talk idra into submission there as well? I'm only 30 minutes in but I definitely feel Artosis just talks and talks, day9 and TLO didn't seem to have the motivation to argue his points. | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
|
maneatingshoe
Canada484 Posts
| ||
|
Eiii
United States2566 Posts
On June 25 2010 05:44 Piy wrote: Artosis did go on a bit, but his points are correct and well argued. I'm sure there are a lot of valid points in what Artosis had to say, but I really don't think he argued them well-- most of his reasoning was 'Idra and I have talked about it a lot and we both agree that it's really hard'. And when someone actually tried to have a discussion with him, bring up counter arguments to his complaints he really just doesn't think to address them-- I mean, 'nerfing tanks would make TvP too hard' 'Well TvP is supposed to be hard'? Jeez. I really liked the rest of the podcast (and a lot of artosis' comments!) but more often than not it felt like anyone trying to have a discussion with artosis was just arguing with a brick wall. | ||
|
thymus
1 Post
| ||
|
itmeJP
United States1101 Posts
On June 25 2010 14:07 thymus wrote: How long do these episodes usually take to get up on itunes? going on a trip in 2 days and need something to do on the ride! I am unsure. Can't you just download as an mp3 and import it to iTunes?  | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 25 2010 02:59 MonkeyKungFu wrote: @ Rabiator The tank nerf down to 50 dmg doesnt mean squat against zerg and only benefits terran. Hydra and raoch die in the same amount of shots, but the siege tanks needs one more shot to die from friendly fire, some nerf lol. The tank AI does not allow you to send in lets say 1 zergling to create a time window for you to engage. TBH, I dont find tanks itself the problem, its the synergy of the terran army that makes it extremely hard to break when you reach a certain point. Also when they say the MU is fine, I disagree cause I think its just wrong when the only way to win against this "build" is to always attack where his army isn't and doing guerrilla warfare to dry terran out. If terran has a 150 army and takes out a zerg army og 200 only loosing 10 supply, something is wrong. Another thing worth mentioning. I can only say this from my own experience, but when it comes to drones and expansions, zerg just needs more to win. The terran units are in general stronger and to be able to constantly produce enough units you need the eco to support it. You raise a good point about the siege tanks killing each other in one less hit. Sadly that is appropriate only for assaults with Brood Lords, since a sufficient ground attack will deal a tiny amount so the 20 lost damage wont matter. The one thing where the reducxd damage does hurt the Terran to actually kill Zerg is the Roach ... when you take upgrades into account. Pre-nerf a 3 attack tank did 75 damage, so it would kill even a 3 defense Roach with 2 shots ( (75-4)*2 = 142 ) instead of 3. After the nerf you still need 3 shots even with 3 attack upgrades. The synergy of the Terran army is what makes it awesome, but which also makes it hard to play AND which gives mech its achilles heel. A sieged tank without an aerial spotter is not performing at its maximum efficiency, so if the Zerg would go for air dominance (and I think either IdrA or Artosis demonstrated this in a game wayyy before the nerf) they can abuse the critical weakness of mech: its lack of air defense against armored (Corruptor and Brood Lord are both armored) flying units. You need to build LOTS of Vikings against a bunch of Corruptors, but you only need 2-3 Brood Lords to nibble away at a sieged mech army. Thors are more or less semi-mobile air defenses only and Marines squishy as hell and susceptible to Infestors. With these possibilities I fail to see how there is no solution to be found and especially how someone claims that there is none after just a few weeks of testing. It just devalues every opinion of Artosis (and IdrA), because I question their judgement with statements like these. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
BSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
