|
You may act professionally. However, the "teams" you send to these events for the most part do not meet that requirement. The only hostility my post suggests is towards the trolling that occurs on your forums. The rest of my post was meant to refute an argument posted as an article on your site.
There is no exaggeration, and I have also attended those same events. Except in my case the same staff attended all the events instead of the smattering of representatives from TL. Furthermore, while I rarely post on TL I've had an account for a long time. Perhaps the reason I don't post more is that when I refute any position held by TL staff another admin attempts to berate me :D
Lastly, it's not my job to "endear" myself to your community. My job is to keep the interpretation fair and balanced. If you have an issue with constructive criticism and discussion of articles posted by your staff members then I would suggest you not allow posts based on "experimentation" to be written.
|
Osaka27140 Posts
NOW I remember you, you are the guy whose opinion of TL was
Who could possibly not like drooling over Korean pros all day?
That is right. You also said that TL was stuck on SC and your site was more focused on SC2, and
You can keep the old school, I'll take the new book, thanks.
I knew you were familiar. Your job may not be to endear yourself to the community, but if you want people to take you seriously, insulting them first is probably not the right way to go.
|
Yes, I did say those things. And I stand behind them. Taken out of context, but still true. :D
And replying to your edit... I said "your community" which apparently consists mostly of attacking positions held by other credible sites and the Blizzard development team themselves. As far as the StarCraft 2 community as a whole, I'd like to think I've tried to bring a decent update as far as the game's progress from these events without speculating to the extent that this article does.
|
Osaka27140 Posts
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
This is the guy that rated the queen the worst out of all the SC2 units right? lolol
|
Osaka27140 Posts
Apparently this is the SC2 superduperfunsite admin build order.
- Insult an entire website by telling them they are drooling over players who are very good at a game they enjoy.
- Come back 5 months later because you think someone was talking about your column, but no one was.
- Call everyone ridiculous and unprofessional.
- Compare 60 hours of game play by one person to hundreds by many as being superior.
- Then try to make a point about the game and a column, now that you have pissed everyone off.
- Get run over by 1 hatch hydras.
Sound accurate?
|
Yes, I did. A unit intended solely too boost the macro of Zerg? Terrible abilities otherwise. Might as well give it to a building.
EDIT: I'm not going to flame with you. I take back what I said about your acting professionally. Clearly I had you confused with another TL staff member. Have a good night.
|
really nice post Hot_Bid I wish I was there to try out your 1 Hatch Build I still love doing that on Iccup  1 Hatch for life !! *Queen is smexy~*
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:07 Joneagle_X wrote:
Yes, I did. A unit intended solely too boost the macro of Zerg? Terrible abilities otherwise. Might as well give it to a building.
EDIT: I'm not going to flame with you. Have a good night.
I don't think I ever spoke like I knew everything or that this was the be-all-end-all of SC2 imbalance. It was just our staff's initial impression of the game. As I said, we could be wrong. We probably are at least partly wrong.
But that doesn't suddenly make everything we've said illegitimate -- while I readily concede that your arguments might even be right, you seem almost irrationally sure that your thoughts on these issues that nobody other than Blizzard employees are experts in. How can you be so certain that you're the authority on this? Llike the statement in your article about the Queen being really bad... that's just flat wrong.
Also, its not a good idea to just come into a community, talk down to everyone with an egotistical and condescending tone, then when someone points it out in an unoffensive manner, you get on a high horse and cry about us berating and flaming you. Your conduct in these last few posts plus your hostile posting history -- why would anyone want to visit your site when the people that post articles on there act like you?
|
On September 04 2009 12:07 Manifesto7 wrote:
Apparently this is the SC2 superduperfunsite admin build order.
- Insult an entire website by telling them they are drooling over players who are very good at a game they enjoy.
- Come back 5 months later because you think someone was talking about your column, but no one was.
- Call everyone ridiculous and unprofessional.
- Compare 60 hours of game play by one person to hundreds by many as being superior.
- Then try to make a point about the game and a column, now that you have pissed everyone off.
- Get run over by 1 hatch hydras.
Sound accurate?
Because I don't act like this.
I never implied that I was somehow the only person to understand StarCraft 2, but posting an article that is this in-depth and so limited in scope with so little playtime was a mistake.
Thirdly, I stand behind the grade I gave the Queen. She's been extremely weakened. Then again, you might not know that without the reference of previous builds to rely on.
|
Also, I never said you were COMPLETELY wrong. Your observations about Fast Expand strategies are correct.
It's a bit difficult to form a cohesive argument into a forum posting. Especially when you made as many points as you did.
I think your analysis was well intentioned but far too limited in scope. That's why you missed what you did.
There are benefits to taking a wider view of the game as well as using a selective approach. But drawing the conclusions you did from such a limited build test made your opinion more into a nit-picking session.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:16 Joneagle_X wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 12:07 Manifesto7 wrote:
Apparently this is the SC2 superduperfunsite admin build order.
- Insult an entire website by telling them they are drooling over players who are very good at a game they enjoy.
- Come back 5 months later because you think someone was talking about your column, but no one was.
- Call everyone ridiculous and unprofessional.
- Compare 60 hours of game play by one person to hundreds by many as being superior.
- Then try to make a point about the game and a column, now that you have pissed everyone off.
- Get run over by 1 hatch hydras.
Sound accurate? Because I don't act like this. I never implied that I was somehow the only person to understand StarCraft 2, but posting an article that is this in-depth and so limited in scope with so little playtime was a mistake. Thirdly, I stand behind the grade I gave the Queen. She's been extremely weakened. Then again, you might not know that without the reference of previous builds to rely on.
Did you actually read the posts you made on this site? You are hostile, condescending, you overreact to what I wrote, and you have a post history of bad mouthing TL. Is it really that strange that our admins would respond negatively toward this type of behavior? Have some common sense. Its fine if you disagree just don't be a jerk when you do.
|
Can't we all just get along? This is SC2. A game where we all will treasure in the coming years. Ever since day 1, I have seen communities constantly attacking one another. Even though I believe Joneagle_X was a bit too aggressive in his tone, he does have a valid point.
A lot of members on here do constantly attack other fansites and degrade them. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should degrade them. I have seen many posts prasing Hot_Bid like there is no tomorrow while on the other hand, attacking gamereplayers just because he says Zerg isn't good. Is that really neccessary? Why don't we discuss it in a civil way without attacking each other? How would you guys feel if another big fansite such as SCLEGACY has members that attack teamliquiders just because of different opinions. You guys wouldn't be too happy about it also right? Just like when that random battlenet guy attacked Hot_Bid's strategy a bit earlier.
All in all, why don't we just all get along without degrading one another? Is it really that hard to do?
|
|
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:21 Joneagle_X wrote:
Also, I never said you were COMPLETELY wrong. Your observations about Fast Expand strategies are correct.
It's a bit difficult to form a cohesive argument into a forum posting. Especially when you made as many points as you did.
I think your analysis was well intentioned but far too limited in scope. That's why you missed what you did.
There are benefits to taking a wider view of the game as well as using a selective approach. But drawing the conclusions you did from such a limited build test made your opinion more into a nit-picking session.
I don't understand... you say on the one hand that the analysis is too limited and should take a "wider view" of the game. In your review, you cover about 10x the ground I cover in this article. But doesn't it make less sense to cover so much ground? Because you only have two days, you can't even properly review how so many units interact let alone grade them.
There's two ways to review. You can generalize about units and compare damage and numerical counters, or you can actually playtest and figure out which builds work and which don't. I'm not saying I'm 100% right about this Queen thing. But I strongly believe our approach toward play testing and reviewing is far superior than spending 10 minutes on each unit comparing damage outputs from the previous version of the game.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:26 TheBigOne wrote:
Can't we all just get along? This is SC2. A game where we all will treasure in the coming years. Ever since day 1, I have seen communities constantly attacking one another. Even though I believe Joneagle_X was a bit too aggressive in his tone, he does have a valid point.
A lot of members on here do constantly attack other fansites and degrade them. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should degrade them. I have seen many posts prasing Hot_Bid like there is no tomorrow while on the other hand, attacking gamereplayers just because he says Zerg isn't good. Is that really neccessary? Why don't we discuss it in a civil way without attacking each other? How would you guys feel if another big fansite such as SCLEGACY has members that attack teamliquiders just because of different opinions. You guys wouldn't be too happy about it also right? Just like when that random battlenet guy attacked Hot_Bid's strategy a bit earlier.
All in all, why don't we just all get along without degrading one another? Is it really that hard to do?
Just to be clear, we do not endorse flaming other sites and people from TL that do aren't endorsed by us and don't speak for our staff or our site.
I even posted in this thread telling people to calm down and not overreact so much. I said several times that I may not be correct, in fact I know for certain I'm not 100% right. I don't think any fan site review can be very accurate given that we didn't have very much time to play the game. But again, I believe our approach (TL's) to reviewing the game is the best for our users and site (oriented toward competitive play).
I agree there's no need for hostility, and maybe this guy is just responding to our users that acted out, but I don't think I was overly hostile even a little bit in any of my posts.
|
I think your approach is correct and I commend you for that. In fact I had no issue with your article other than I felt that the overall assumption that any of the 1-Hatch builds are invincible is incorrect.
I just think you focused far too much on the tier 1 tech and you were focusing on defending a strategy rather than reacting to it.
You basically discounted all the other mechanics of the Protoss and Terran races. However, I think you were correct in your ZvZ analysis because I have major issues in that matchup no matter what I tried. I couldn't find a decent option to bring the game into Tier 2.
But I try not to generalize based on stats either. When I play I make notes about unit interactions and build orders, not the HP or damage of each unit. That consideration comes later. That's why when someone says "Hydralisk" I immediately counter with Hellion because I utilized it firsthand.
P.S. - I thought this was a little hostile LOL No hard feelings. I can take my lickinz
On September 04 2009 12:02 Hot_Bid wrote:
This is the guy that rated the queen the worst out of all the SC2 units right? lolol
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:32 Joneagle_X wrote:
I think your approach is correct and I commend you for that. In fact I had no issue with your article other than I felt that the overall assumption that any of the 1-Hatch builds are invincible is incorrect.
I never said 1-hatch builds are invincible, just that they are very difficult to play against. How could I possibly think that a simplistic build developed in 2 days is in any way "invincible." I even conceded its possible we completely missed things.
I just think you focused far too much on the tier 1 tech and you were focusing on defending a strategy rather than reacting to it.
Tier 1 dictates what happens in the rest of the game. It's a huge snowball effect and knowing what kind of advantage you can get in early game is critical for late game. Tier 1 is actually far more important to determining mid game and late game than actual Tier 2 and Tier 3 units. Anyone that watches competitive RTS can tell you that.
We played a lot of games and very carefully looked at Tier 1. Its the simplest to analyze and far less complex than trying to come up with some theory about the unit interaction later in the game. Most other sites do these broad sweeping reviews that look at every unit.
It would be like reviewing BW and saying "well tanks rape ultralisks, i grade ultralisk a C-" when we all know this statement is worthless to an assessment of competitive TvZ. Each matchup is far more complex and has far more dynamics than a simple straightforward grade. You can't possibly think that two days of playing and one fluff paragraph about a 3rd-tier unit is somehow better? How to get to that unit and the early game dynamic is far more determinative of the usefulness of a 3rd tier unit than just briefly looking at it. You'd need weeks to fully understand if a hive unit is overpowered, and 99% of the time you'd spend on builds, not the unit itself.
You basically discounted all the other mechanics of the Protoss and Terran races. However, I think you were correct in your ZvZ analysis because I have major issues in that matchup no matter what I tried. I couldn't find a decent option to bring the game into Tier 2.
But I try not to generalize based on stats either. When I play I make notes about unit interactions and build orders, not the HP or damage of each unit. That consideration comes later. That's why when someone says "Hydralisk" I immediately counter with Hellion because I utilized it firsthand.
I don't think anyone from any other site talked about scouting and the problem of overly powerful Zerg allins. Killing scouts and making it a guessing game for your opponent (are you powering drones or making units) is even harder in SC2 with the extra larvae from the Queen. Nobody but someone familiar with the BW competitive scene really understands this.
It's incredibly important and fragile a situation when you have to guess what your opponent is doing. Its easier to scout in BW and its immensely easy to turn the game into a coinflip with Zerg. Of course it's easy to say "i counter your hydras with my X" when you know how many units and when the Zerg will attack.
The real issue with larvae inject is that given how easy it is to deny scouting now, the Queen magnifies the Zerg's ability to all-in attack or super-power economy, and if the P or T guesses wrong, they either die or are very behind.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:32 Joneagle_X wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 12:02 Hot_Bid wrote:
This is the guy that rated the queen the worst out of all the SC2 units right? lolol You really don't consider this to be condescending?
I said I was not hostile at all before you made your posts in this thread. I don't think what I said in the article (especially with the concessions I made and non-confrontational tone in posts after) justified what you posted. In fact, right now we're discussing it fine. If you go back and re-read what you said and your post history on TL, can you honestly say you haven't changed your tone? You're far less condescending and hostile now than in your first few posts in this thread.
And no I don't think that post is that bad -- and you must admit its funny that we thought the queen was the most important unit in the game and you rated it a "D".
At my worst I made witty remarks based on posts made earlier in the thread.
I'm just going to quote this and let it speak for itself lol
|
Let's agree to disagree on the fundamentals of reviewing the game.
I've tried the micromanagement style of the review and it just doesn't work. The build changes so often and you have so little time that it's really difficult to understand an issue in depth. It's inevitable that you're going to miss something if you're not looking higher up the tier.
I disagree with it being any more difficult to scout in SC2. I agree that Zerg can easily change from drones to troops in a flash but I don't think that makes them any more dangerous than they were in BW. In fact I feel they might have to be less aggressive because of the achille's heel that the Queen represents. Take her out and the entire Zerg macro is crippled. Unless they have another they're in really deep trouble. Especially when they're trying a 1-Hatch build like you're suggesting. In addition she's incredibly easy to kill which only makes this worse.
If you think about it it's also incredibly difficult to scout Terran. Marines + walling makes it incredibly hard to guess what they're going to do and with the addition of the Reaper and Viking you could make an argument that it's actually more dangerous to not know what the Terran is doing than the Zerg.
The bottom line is that clearly scouting has become imperative to the player in StarCraft 2. However, I don't think it's going to be any tougher, just different. Perhaps scouting will just become a more aggressive affair than the simple suicide worker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
