[D] The new Zerg standard for all match-ups? - Page 49

Wow, I was actually paying attention to this whole thing from the start and this is not at all how I expected it to turn out. That first thread where the logic seemed sort of like "Game sense doesn't matter, let's push the limits of zerg economics and see if our discoveries can rewrite game sense" is a pretty far cry from the place we are now, a place I'm kinda' appalled to be in.

I mean, I understand the idea of getting flustered if you get a lot of people yelling at you with theorycraft, I really do, but that isn't what this is anymore. You have people who play this game thoroughly ridiculous amounts explaining perceived weaknesses in the build to you. Now, if you have a way to defend the build, wouldn't it be rational to counter their points? If you were teaching, say, kindergarten math and a student asked you why 2 + 3 didn't equal 4, you would be able to explain that numbers didn't add up like that. I'm not trying to be belittling with that comparison, I'm just pointing out that a valid argument can be explained.

You're original post seemed like it wanted to test Zerg economics in an effort to gain understanding and potentially overhaul the metagame. That's admirable. Realistically, understanding of Zerg economy was gained, I won't argue with that. Unfortunately, as everyone (you included) knows, raw economy is a relatively simple thing when compared to Starcraft 2 as a whole. When you tried to convey that knowledge of economy over to the actual game, I think you lost track of what you were doing.

Originally your posts seemed focused on results. On working with people to get something usable, something relevant, and potentially create some form of metagame progress. When this topic was created, I noticed something. The title is exceedingly more arrogant than the previous ones. The tone has changed. You don't seem like you are trying to work with other people to get results, you seem like you are absolutely certain that you have a result. The thing is, that isn't how builds work. Starcraft 2 doesn't have builds that just work, everything is situational and builds, even established ones, are debated endlessly. If you were allowed to stand up and question the standard 15 Hatch opening that pros use, then surely you recognize that everyone else is just as allowed to question the theoretical build of someone unknown, right? It's in the nature of a strategy game to constantly debate all routes, standard or otherwise, and dodging that debate makes it seem like you have nothing to say, like you have no defense at all.

I'm not even going to raise the question of the effectiveness of your build. I legitimately don't give a shit about that, for all I know you do have counterpoints to these accusations about your build and you're just too busy being an ass to make them. You come off as someone who is too busy with his ego trip to bother defending his build. If you were more willing to discuss things with people who pose basic questions about the build, you might come off as respectable and, more importantly, your build might come off as effective. If you've actually got some horrible problem with answering the same question twice, or if you honestly think the people questioning are either trolls or stupid, then wouldn't a copy/paste of a correct answer not only take less effort than typing out witty criticisms of them, but also have the added benefit of not making you look like a complete ass? You no longer come across to me as someone who wants to learn something or push the envelope, instead you come off as someone who refuses to acknowledge that there may be any fault in his build and instead of defending it and shaping it into something respectable is ignoring all criticism and not just making a fool of himself, but making a fool of his creation.

I'd feel bad for typing something so long winded and pointless, but after your epic autobiography explaining how great you are and how everyone else didn't have valid questions, I'm perfectly fine with it. Anyway, congratulations, you've managed to completely flip my original view of you.

P.S. For clarification, my original view of you was "Damn, this guy has a cool idea. I'll actually bother to create a TL account to defend him from these trolls." My current view is "You do know that you aren't helping your case, right?" I was actually pretty mad when I first started typing this post because of how horribly something I was interested in got mangled, but now I'm just confused. The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong.

On December 16 2010 05:43 jacobman wrote:


Is this really the 3rd post?