Not true at all. There's a famous build called the snute bust in ZvP which needs a gold to work. I've often taken the gold in ZvT as well and stayed on a low drone count for a while and used it for mass ling. In PvT the gold is also a favourite of mine because I like zealots and I've also often taken it deliberately in PvZ for zealot heavy 3base timings.
I don't really care what builds you do. And I don't think the snute build was ever widely popular. Even if it was (and I somehow never saw it despite watching almost every large tournament), it's only one build. That doesn't constitute the concept of the map being okay, considering we haven't even talked about Protoss.[/qupte]It was popular enough to be given a name and mentioned on his liquipedia page, apart from that many Zergs take golds in ZvP for a variety of reasons on maps that have them. It'; s also pretty popular on planet S.
This directly contradicts it being a winners base. So what is it?
I don't think it does. I guess I worded it badly, but I'm saying that if you can control that area, you've won. Having a gold base there makes easier, but doesn't reward the better player. It makes it more difficult for the other player (it would be balanced in mirrors, but not TvZ).
That's not what a winner's base is though. A winner's base is a base that you can only take if you are so far ahead you have already won. So we are basically in agreement that controlling the centre is very important on antiga.
You mean to say that Terran tends to win with 3-4 bases aginst a 3base Zerg? I am shocked at this revelation! Clearly there is something wrong with this map that it works like that here.
I mean to say that, Zerg doesn't have a chance to take a fourth base on Antiga because of the layout. Not true with good maps, imo.
Then explain the magnificent 51% TvZ winrate on this map?
And if all this is true, then why isn't Antiga Shipyard terran favoured?
How do you explain with all this that antiga shipyard is one of the most balanced maps in competitive existence (as Blizzard maps tend to be nowadays, mind you, they actually know what they are doing). Your story implies that it is Terran favoured, it is not.
Because statistics aren't everything, and there are other factors that go into the balance. Holding the middle base is basically impossible as a third base against a good Zerg. It may not be imbalanced, it's just shitty gameplay because getting a sustainable fourth+ base economy is super hard. Take a look at balance based on game length if you want to, but idk how to find those statistics.
GomTV usually has length averages when won but their stats page suddenly seems to be down.
Anyway, I flat out think what you say is nonsense because I see Zergs secure fourths on antiga all the time. I just put in in youtube 'TvZ, antiga', these are my top results:
- Thorzain vs Sheth, Zerg secures fourth, - Cats vs Demuslim, Zerg secures fourth - Xigua vs BeastyQT, zerg secures fourth - Smile vs LzGamer, Zerg secures fourth - TLO vs Select, Zerg secures fourth
These aren't cherry picked, these are the top 5 results on youtube for the query 'TvZ antiga'.
I'm sorry, but I'm simply not impressed by your self proclaimed knowledge of how maps play out at this point, you keep saying things which at this point become demonstratively false to the point that one might say it is "objectively" false that it is "super hard" to get a sustainable fourth base economy on this map.
I'd say they didn't know something that I did.
I see, do you leave room for the possibility of the reverse?
To be fair, most of the most watched VODs are games that go into the late (often late, late) game, because those become more popular because of being more "epic". This makes it super likely that people took 4ths (and probably 5ths as well) in the top viewed youtube VODs, for any map or any matchup.
LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
I'd say they didn't know something that I did.
I see, do you leave room for the possibility of the reverse?
Yes. I am always open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I want SC2 to be the best game it can be.
On March 15 2013 13:16 monitor wrote: LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
You can argue the same thing of all the other games that Z lost that they are over before T takes their third. Except Demu versus Catz but Catz just threw it with bad engagements. In any case none of the games showed a 'hard to hold fourth', the fourth bases were only starting to fall when T started t get a massive army supply lead which is what tends to happen in those cases.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the 51% TvZ winrate on antiga, is it your contention that ZvT all ins are very popular and powerful on antiga?
On March 15 2013 13:16 monitor wrote: LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
You can argue the same thing of all the other games that Z lost that they are over before T takes their third. Except Demu versus Catz but Catz just threw it with bad engagements. In any case none of the games showed a 'hard to hold fourth', the fourth bases were only starting to fall when T started t get a massive army supply lead which is what tends to happen in those cases.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the 51% TvZ winrate on antiga, is it your contention that ZvT all ins are very popular and powerful on antiga?
You could argue that, but it's harder to argue than my position . I think we'd need a bigger sample size to make any conclusions, such as analyzing 100+ games that were at the pro level with equal skill. Also it'd need to be in a relative close time period since the metagame changes. But it would be possible. The games show, as well as many other games that are available (especially ones that aren't on the top of youtube because of epicness).
My argument is not that Antiga is imbalanced. Statistics show that it is. I'm saying I don't like the gameplay or the way it's balanced.
My argument is not that Antiga doesn't produce good games. I've seen many good games. Merely, I'm arguing that we could have much more epic games if we had a better map.
I'd be willing to bet that zerg wins more frequently in games under 16 minutes than in games over 16 minutes (I'm not sure about the number 16, but you get my point). GOM statistics with a sample size of 100+ games would be alright with me if they're public information.
Siskos, what are you trying to prove, man? "Objectively" that monitor's opinions are poor or unfounded? I've noticed that many threads you're in tends to devolve into a one man stand by you.
Raw statistics alone don't prove much regarding map design...Sure, they point towards overall balance, but how much of that balance is due to a sharp shift in playstyle that the map forces one player/race to make? Balance is not an overall indicator of good map design. Interpretation of statistics is key.
Sure that percentage provides some evidence, but you're not interpreting it. How many games of Antiga's 51% TvZ winrate consist of the Zerg player doing a three base or two base allin? How many games consist of the Zerg getting some sort of advantage that clears them to take a whole side of the map?
An equal and opposite amount of games consist of the Zerg being set back and unable to get anywhere economically. They consist of a Zerg taking a 4th only to lose it minutes later to a drop/push. Many of these games were decided the moment a superior player faced an inferior one.
Much better is to analyze a map's design: the beauty and simplicity of its layout, consistency in application and purpose, cleanliness of execution. These are the things that skilled and amateur mapmakers alike should appreciate!
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: Argumenta is the plural form of argumentum Mr linguist. Look at the sentence again and see 'argumentum' used first as singular and 'argumenta' as plural later.
That's exactly the point. I didn't have plural arguments. Keep trying to seem pseudo-smart, though.
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:Yeh, or you could just admit that you still havne't given me the numbers I asked for 4 pages back because ehh well, you don't have them because you just base your case on argumenta ad populum.
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
On March 15 2013 13:16 monitor wrote: LOL. You realize that 3 out of those 5 videos support precisely what I'm saying? I don't think you understand what I mean by "secure a fourth". In all the games you linked except LzGamer vs. Smile and TLO vs. Select (neither of which I don't consider top level games), the zerg tries to take a fourth and loses it in about 4 minutes, then gets stuck on three bases, and proceeds to lose the game. TLO vs. Select is practically over before Select even gets his third up.
You can argue the same thing of all the other games that Z lost that they are over before T takes their third. Except Demu versus Catz but Catz just threw it with bad engagements. In any case none of the games showed a 'hard to hold fourth', the fourth bases were only starting to fall when T started t get a massive army supply lead which is what tends to happen in those cases.
I'm still waiting for an explanation on the 51% TvZ winrate on antiga, is it your contention that ZvT all ins are very popular and powerful on antiga?
My argument is not that Antiga is imbalanced. Statistics show that it is. I'm saying I don't like the gameplay or the way it's balanced.
Yes, but you speak of this map being very hard on Z in certain ways yet it is balanced, this implies the existence of a cancelling factor, what is it?.
What in yur opinion makes antiga balanced despite Z being unable to secure a fourth, what is the cancellng factor?
My argument is not that Antiga doesn't produce good games. I've seen many good games. Merely, I'm arguing that we could have much more epic games if we had a better map.
My argument is that it produces better games than most maps (in my opinion), therefore it is a better map (in my opinion). The difficulty of holding a fourth contributes to this because it creates tense low econ games where both players are struggling to secure that fourth.
I'd be willing to bet that zerg wins more frequently in games under 16 minutes than in games over 16 minutes (I'm not sure about the number 16, but you get my point). GOM statistics with a sample size of 100+ games would be alright with me if they're public information.
I'm waiting for the gom stats page to come back online then.
On March 15 2013 13:49 Qwyn wrote: Siskos, what are you trying to prove, man? "Objectively" that monitor's opinions are poor or unfounded? I've noticed that many
In this case I'm trying to prove that there is no proof that antiga shipyard close positions is imbalanced, that antiga itself is imbalance (thusfar admitted by most people) or that it is a terrible map.
Note that proving there is no proof for something is not a proof to the contrary.
threads you're in tends to devolve into a one man stand by you.
I'm not so easily swayed by argumenta ad popula. There's a lot of shit people believe just because it's parroted which is blatently false.
Raw statistics alone don't prove much regarding map design...Sure, they point towards overall balance, but how much of that balance is due to a sharp shift in playstyle that the map forces one player/race to make? Balance is not an overall indicator of good map design. Interpretation of statistics is key.
Sure, but people were saying that close pos antiga was _imbalanced_, raw statistics would prove or disprove that.
Sure that percentage provides some evidence, but you're not interpreting it. How many games of Antiga's 51% TvZ winrate consist of the Zerg player doing a three base or two base allin? How many games consist of the Zerg getting some sort of advantage that clears them to take a whole side of the map?
Truth be told. People are in my experience surprised antiga is balancd. Originally everyone was saying it was a Terran map, then it turns out to be balanced and they made other excuses. I don't think people are nearly as good in estimating this as they think they are. I always take crossfire to heart as a particular example. everyone when it came out assumed that it would be a nightmare for ZvP. But slowly and slwly people started to admit that it was in fact the reverse. Artosis kept holding on to his belief that it was a nightmare in ZvP up to the bitter end where Wolf had long recanted.
Which is another thing I'm trying to prove, people don't know nearly as much as they think they do.
Much better is to analyze a map's design: the beauty and simplicity of its layout, consistency in application and purpose, cleanliness of execution. These are the things that skilled and amateur mapmakers alike should appreciate!
THis isn't objective and leads you no-where in discussion, my analysis of antiga is that it's a good map that creates tense games for a multitude of topological reasons (it looks horribly undetailed though). Montor's analysis isn't. Gee, then it becomes a yes-no game, totally uninteresting. Then there's the other thing, people are just stupidly biased versus blizzard maps.
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: Argumenta is the plural form of argumentum Mr linguist. Look at the sentence again and see 'argumentum' used first as singular and 'argumenta' as plural later.
That's exactly the point. I didn't have plural arguments. Keep trying to seem pseudo-smart, though.
You had more than one argumentum ad populum in our history dude. Just admit you're horribly embarassed and didn't know that the plural of argumentum ad populum is argumenta ad populum.
You would have never raised this silly issue if I used 'appeal to popularity' and then 'relying on appeals to popularity'.
On March 15 2013 10:39 SiskosGoatee wrote:Yeh, or you could just admit that you still havne't given me the numbers I asked for 4 pages back because ehh well, you don't have them because you just base your case on argumenta ad populum.
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
He said right from the start that blizzard and tournaments have made it cross-spawn for balance reasons:
If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues.
He gave you the source of where to find the imbalance arguements/data. You can do two things now: -) disagree with his choice of source and show why blizzard and tournament organizers are not to trust in balance questions -) get the arguements/data from the source yourself
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
He said right from the start that blizzard and tournaments have made it cross-spawn for balance reasons:
THat's not a number. And I'm pretty sure they haven't, they did it because people wanted it, that's a difference. People generally don't like to see rushes so they increase rush distance.
The inclusion of maps like Atlantis Spaceship and Metropolis pretty much flat out demonstrates that Tournaments don't give a flying damn about balance. They, as smart businesspeople, give the people what they want.
If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues.
He gave you the source of where to find the imbalance arguements/data. You can do two things now: -) disagree with his choice of source and show why blizzard and tournament organizers are not to trust in balance questions -) get the arguements/data from the source yourself
No, he did not give me a source where to give this data at all, You think I can email blizzard and just get it?
I'm accusing him of thinking it is imbalanced without ever having looked into the numbers just because everyone says so. I don't think Blizzard made this change at all because of balance, if that was the case they could've done it a year back. They did it because people wanted it.
Note that Shakuras had close pos disabled from the very start back when metalopolis and shattered temple still had it on the ladder, demonstrating that Blizzard is willing to disable close spawns when they are actually broken. THey are not, and were never broken on metalopolis or shattered temple or Blizzard would've done it long before. They just gave it because people wanted it, that's all.
And again I stress, it is undeniable that tournaments don't give a flying damn picking their map pool based on balance if you look at the ridiculously imbalanced stuff that often finds its way in there.
On March 15 2013 22:39 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yes, but you speak of this map being very hard on Z in certain ways yet it is balanced, this implies the existence of a cancelling factor, what is it?.
What in yur opinion makes antiga balanced despite Z being unable to secure a fourth, what is the cancellng factor?
I should think this one is obvious, lest you're grasping at straws again. You've glossed over the point of interpretation of statistics without really going into why it is or isn't important. You simply trail off into how everyone knows nothing. Again.
On March 16 2013 01:22 SiskosGoatee wrote: Well, then you tell me. What cancells this out, what feature of antiga gives Z an edge up and in what way?
It's already been mentioned, but I'll bite. The Zerg player on this map is forced to win the game based on 2 and 3 base timings, or else secure some advantage early on that enables them to take either the gold base or half the map straight up. A lot can happen before a 4-base timing becomes relevant, a map can be technically balanced with a shit 4th base.
Yeah, so, again, what feature of antiga makes these 2-3base timings so much more powerful than on say Cloud Kingdom or daybreak?
Your not answering my question, why are these timings more powerful on antiga?
Personally, I'm not at all noticing them to be any more common. There was an era where a certain 2-2 ling/bane/muta bust was popular on this map but that has long past. I'm just not seeing 2-3base timings any more often on antiga than on cloud kingdom or daybreak.
I did admit I haven't given you the numbers. In fact, I specifically said I wasn't going to waste time doing the legwork for you. If you're so convinced I'm wrong, go ask Blizzard, MLG, etc. Fact of the matter is, I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you've already proven yourself time and time again in the past to reject rational thinking. I'm just taking a few moments of my time to show others how ridiculous you are.
Why do you even respond then? That's what I asked at the start, just say at the beginning 'No, I'm not giving you any numbers' and leave it be instead of coming with 5 paragraphs of stuff I'm not after.
I accused you from the start of relying on popular opinion instead of numbers, what d you do, you come back with more popular opinion? There's something seriously miswired in that cranium of yours.
He said right from the start that blizzard and tournaments have made it cross-spawn for balance reasons:
If talking about how Antiga Shipyard was absolutely broken in adjacent spawns, you're basically disagreeing with Blizzard's decision to force it cross-spawn after countless games played on it and tournaments having already forced cross due to adjacent-spawn balance issues.
He gave you the source of where to find the imbalance arguements/data. You can do two things now: -) disagree with his choice of source and show why blizzard and tournament organizers are not to trust in balance questions -) get the arguements/data from the source yourself
Why do I respond, Siskos? This is why. Other, more reasonable people read these threads too. There's no point complaining for me to tell you from the start that I'm not giving you numbers, because I did say from the start that I'm not giving you numbers and to go find them yourself.
By the way, desperately trying to paint me as "embarrassed" over argumenta v argumentum with such weak reasoning? Please. I made one argument in this thread. Trying to fabricate the notion that I've made multiple logical fallacies in the past, and that you were actually referring to my entire post history, is such a silly rewriting of history. You realize anyone can just go back pages and read your posts, yes?
simply because I refuse to waste my time doing the legwork for someone who's deliberately antagonistic for the sake of passing the time (see: Siskos' complete derailing of the thread by discussing nature and morality, nature and morality in a map thread, for God sakes). I actually value my time and use it for more productive purposes. On the note of breaking down my argument as logical fallacy, he'd do better to call it argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal from authority, as the crux of my point is that pro tournaments and Blizzard made the deciding call.
The fact that I do a better job at criticizing my own argument than Siskos does should be a wake up call to anyone who actually takes him seriously.
Yeh, or you could just admit that you still havne't given me the numbers I asked for 4 pages back because ehh well, you don't have them because you just base your case on argumenta ad populum.
Your sentence there clearly says I'm basing my case (singular form; plural would be cases, in case you didn't catch that) on argumenta ad populum. Anyone with even a grade school understanding of context would understand you were only referring to the statements I made in this thread. I'll ask once again: you done being pseudo-smart?
"Herp derp I still haven't proven anything, argumentum ad populum ftw to respond to something which accuses me of just relying on argumenta ad populum instead of actually coming with any proof for my ideas."
I did exactly that, I accused you of relying on popular arguments. Are you honestly saying you fell over the plural form here?
I did exactly that at that point, I originally accused you of relying on appeals to popularity. Argumenta is completely valid and you're just working yourself into a corner, you simply didn't know the plural form of argumentum is argumenta.
Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my point as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually argumentum, but I digress)
I wasn't labeling your point, I was labeling your points. It's blatently obvious you had no idea it was the plural form. your sentence isn't even grammatical unless you assume that. If you were debating that I should've used a singular form it would be: "Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my points as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually an argumentum, I made only one, but I digress)". If you actually meant to communicate with that sentence that the crux was that you only made one point, not multiple. You have the most terrible explanation skills ever, and on top of that misconstrued grammar because you forgot the singular indefinite article 'an' in this case.
You didn't know argumenta was the plural form, you got caught on it and now you're desperately trying to save yourself.
Design is objective. There are objective features of design that exist due to a directive...
You cannot claim that a map's features, which exist and will not shift (except change for a future reason) are not objective once the map is released. Sure the interpretation of why things might be that way is subjective in nature, but that does not change that they are and the influence they have on gameplay. If an overwhelming body of evidence suggests certain design elements cause a fluctuation or reaction by either race/player that leads to a stagnant gameflow (not balance)...this is a trend that can be objectively observed.
Ultimately, you are trying to justify that Antiga is a good map based off of hard statistics. You CANNOT interpret these statistics. You don't have the time to.
That does not change my subjective opinion that a majority of people hate Antiga (from what I have observed).
At the end of the day, you can look at the design of all Blizzard maps. You can find objective flaws. Flaws that clash with the current directive. Flaws that clash with what mapmakers have learned.
Antiga was a pretty good map. The majority of Blizzard maps are absolute shit. This one may just be the "diamond in the rough." If you liked it, great! A lot of people do not like it now because it represents something they want to move away from.
But for heaven's sake get that pitchfork out of your ass, bro. Do you really think you can change other people's opinions by banging down the castle door? If you liked Antiga, great! It's a pretty good map.
On March 16 2013 02:58 Qwyn wrote: Design is objective. There are objective features of design that exist due to a directive...
You cannot claim that a map's features, which exist and will not shift (except change for a future reason) are not objective once the map is released. Sure the interpretation of why things might be that way is subjective in nature, but that does not change that they are and the influence they have on gameplay. If an overwhelming body of evidence suggests certain design elements cause a fluctuation or reaction by either race/player that leads to a stagnant gameflow (not balance)...this is a trend that can be objectively observed.
Of course map features are objective, if those features are 'good' or 'bad' are subjective. The very terms 'good' and 'bad' imply subjectivity. To begin with, they are oughts, not isses.
Ultimately, you are trying to justify that Antiga is a good map based off of hard statistics. You CANNOT interpret these statistics. You don't have the time to.
No, ultimately I'm saying the mapping scene is filled with parroting and repeating of myths and no one takes the time to actually check and find out if they are true.
That does not change my subjective opinion that a majority of people hate Antiga (from what I have observed).
This is again objective, either 50% or more of people dislike antiga or they do not. In this case I'm pretty sure they do, it's not a popular map, so yeah, it's an objective fact that the majority of people dislike antiga. To say this shows that antiga is bad is an argumt[b]um[/b[ ad populum.
At the end of the day, you can look at the design of all Blizzard maps. You can find objective flaws. Flaws that clash with the current directive. Flaws that clash with what mapmakers have learned.
And in at the end of the day. Blizzard maps alway turn out to be ridiculously balanced so they clearly know what they are doing on some level.
You can find flaws with any map. As I outlined before, half of the maps people post here don't allow overlords to check the natural drone saturation, this is essential to stop ZvZ from devolving into a coin flip. But no one gives a damn about it apparently.
Antiga was a pretty good map. The majority of Blizzard maps are absolute shit. This one may just be the "diamond in the rough." If you liked it, great! A lot of people do not like it now because it represents something they want to move away from.
I don't like the majority of maps, while I'm not a super big fan of Antiga the way I still am of XNC. It's an okay map. Better in my opinion than say Metropolis or Ohana. Dual Site is still my favourite map, it's just horribly imbalanced.
But for heaven's sake get that pitchfork out of your ass, bro. Do you really think you can change other people's opinions by banging down the castle door? If you liked Antiga, great! It's a pretty good map.
I'm not trying to change people's opinion, maybe you should read bro. Like I said a thousand times before. If people like or dislike Antiga, their opinion. But to say that if a map is good or bad is 'objective' is retarded. That's ultimately a subjective assessment.
You're trying really hard to salvage yourself, Siskos. It's argumentum because there's one argument made. Keep bending over backwards in vain about it, though. My sentence doesn't make sense grammatically because it doesn't make sense to use plural form for a singular instance, which is the whole point I'm making of your continued derailment of the thread. There's a reason "argumenta ad populum" was in quotes, instead of italics as I've used since then.
Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my point as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually argumentum, but I digress)
Behold. Bold added for emphasis of the important parts. This is, again, grade school stuff. Nice of you to deliberately remove the italics from the sentence when you quoted it, though, despite that anyone can go back and read the original comment.
And then we have this gem:
On March 16 2013 01:53 SiskosGoatee wrote: I wasn't labeling your point, I was labeling your points. It's blatently obvious you had no idea it was the plural form.
Hey, Siskos, did you not actually read the sentence of mine you quoted? I'll try to keep this as simple as possible.
Side note: I find it cute that Siskos is resorting to labelling my point as "argumenta ad populum" (it's actually argumentum, but I digress)
Just focus on the bold part. Basically, you're a grammatical mess. We've already been over how I've only made one point in this thread, and just so we're absolutely clear, I'm going to reiterate the point: Antiga's non-cross balance issues are unanimously acknowledged by the professional tournaments and Blizzard Entertainment itself. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, the logical fallacy you'd actually want to use is argumentum ad verecundiam.
One last thing, before you quote my "outcries of the community" statement as justification for your misuse of argumentum ad populum: we've actually been over this one before with ramp block imbalance. + Show Spoiler +
On August 15 2012 16:16 iamcaustic wrote: Reading this, what you label "the community" and what I label "the community" are clearly very different things, so allow me to clarify what I'm talking about.
When I say "the community", I am talking about the people that actually, you know, do stuff. They're map-makers, journalists, tournament organizers both large and small, barcraft organizers, pro and semi-pro players, etc. I am not talking about r/starcraft or even the TL forums -- though I do include everyone who helps run them. People who only play the game casually and/or watch pro games I call amateurs and spectators, respectively. Out of those, the ones that post the garbage you speak of are called the hivemind (as seems to be the popular term on r/starcraft). I watch hockey, being a Canadian. That doesn't make me a part of any hockey community.
To sum that up, my use of "the community" means people that are actually relevant to the StarCraft scene, even if only in small ways. Perhaps that's more technical and unorthodox than common, so I'll drop my earlier comments on the matter.
I do, however, still take issues with your coupling my concept of the community with the hivemind, assuming they think and act the same way and therefore consider ramp block to be nothing more than another freak out.
We're now at the point of the cyclic shitfest that begins when you're wrong and start conveniently ignoring or rewriting previous comments to keep being antagonistic for the hell of it, so I won't be responding again. There's more than enough here for others to make their own judgements, and responding to me isn't going to help your case at this point. Have a good day now, ya hear?
EPT
. I think we'd need a bigger sample size to make any conclusions, such as analyzing 100+ games that were at the pro level with equal skill. Also it'd need to be in a relative close time period since the metagame changes. But it would be possible. The games show, as well as many other games that are available (especially ones that aren't on the top of youtube because of epicness). 
