|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
But PvP is more highly rated than TvT now!!
SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG
|
On July 05 2013 14:25 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. It's nothing like that, this is a mirror matchup, not Terran or Protoss struggling to win in the late game vs Zerg.
The player who gets his drop into the mineral line first wins. Pretty much same.
|
On July 05 2013 14:29 DidYuhim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 14:25 Dodgin wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. It's nothing like that, this is a mirror matchup, not Terran or Protoss struggling to win in the late game vs Zerg. The player who gets his drop into the mineral line first wins. Pretty much same.
You're simplifying it too much, the player who gets their drop into the mineral line first does not always win. Even if that were true It's not the same, at least come up with an example that makes sense to justify flash's loss to anything other than his poor play.
Flash was actually in a great position in that game until he decided to take all his vikings, land them at the bottom of his opponent's natural ramp and try to bust up, leaving his bases not as well defended against drops. He made something like 9 vikings only to try to go all in with them.
|
why is there no writeup for yesterday?
|
|
|
A recap/review, I'd think he means.
|
On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player?
He just made a miscalculation. He thought he could bust down the front, but since he couldn't he lost.
|
Yup, I meant a review, though I can see why you might have thought I meant the preview, as that was also published yesterday
|
On July 05 2013 14:31 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 14:29 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 Dodgin wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. It's nothing like that, this is a mirror matchup, not Terran or Protoss struggling to win in the late game vs Zerg. The player who gets his drop into the mineral line first wins. Pretty much same. You're simplifying it too much, the player who gets their drop into the mineral line first does not always win. Even if that were true It's not the same, at least come up with an example that makes sense to justify flash's loss to anything other than his poor play. Flash was actually in a great position in that game until he decided to take all his vikings, land them at the bottom of his opponent's natural ramp and try to bust up, leaving his bases not as well defended against drops. He made something like 9 vikings only to try to go all in with them.
I wouldn't say 'great' position, he was down a lot of scvs and still on 1 factory, Inno was on 3 facts.
To the guy you replied to - it's not as simple as who drops first, although that definitely can lead to an advantage. Innovation actually set up a defense (bunker behind the mineral line, did he have a turret too? don't remember), whereas flash didn't have anything, which made killing scvs very simple.
|
On July 05 2013 15:22 yudan wrote:
Yup, I meant a review, though I can see why you might have thought I meant the preview, as that was also published yesterday
Because 4th of July and many people are still very sad.
|
On July 05 2013 14:31 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 14:29 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 Dodgin wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. It's nothing like that, this is a mirror matchup, not Terran or Protoss struggling to win in the late game vs Zerg. The player who gets his drop into the mineral line first wins. Pretty much same. You're simplifying it too much, the player who gets their drop into the mineral line first does not always win. Even if that were true It's not the same, at least come up with an example that makes sense to justify flash's loss to anything other than his poor play. Flash was actually in a great position in that game until he decided to take all his vikings, land them at the bottom of his opponent's natural ramp and try to bust up, leaving his bases not as well defended against drops. He made something like 9 vikings only to try to go all in with them.
Wasn't he 20 SCV's behind at that point. I thought he just wanted to try something because he was so down in income.
|
On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup.
so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%.
its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective.
|
Lorning
Belgica34432 Posts
|
On July 05 2013 23:20 Black Gun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup. so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%. its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective.
But a broken unit in a mirror matchup doesn't make it any less skill-based, because that broken unit is equally available to both players. If unit X is broken in a mirror matchup to the point that the player making more of unit X or the player that better controls unit X will win, it's based on which player has more skill at using unit X as much as possible, to as great an effect as possible.
I don't deny that such a dynamic typically makes a matchup shitty for a spectator and that it makes it stupid/shallow from a strategic standpoint, but it is nevertheless perfectly fair and skill-based, and that's all I'm trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the matchup is good from a spectator's standpoint. I am not trying to argue that hellbats aren't broken in TvT. All I'm trying to argue is that TvT is still a fair and skill-based matchup.
|
On July 06 2013 04:05 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:20 Black Gun wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup. so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%. its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective. But a broken unit in a mirror matchup doesn't make it any less skill-based, because that broken unit is equally available to both players. If unit X is broken in a mirror matchup to the point that the player making more of unit X or the player that better controls unit X will win, it's based on which player has more skill at using unit X as much as possible, to as great an effect as possible. I don't deny that such a dynamic typically makes a matchup shitty for a spectator and that it makes it stupid/shallow from a strategic standpoint, but it is nevertheless perfectly fair and skill-based, and that's all I'm trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the matchup is good from a spectator's standpoint. I am not trying to argue that hellbats aren't broken in TvT. All I'm trying to argue is that TvT is still a fair and skill-based matchup.
It's not fair since let's say hypothetically someone like Flash has better lategame TvT than Innovation but Innovation always manage to hellbatdrop him to death or at least cripple him before lategame.
|
On July 06 2013 04:11 painkilla wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:05 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 23:20 Black Gun wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup. so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%. its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective. But a broken unit in a mirror matchup doesn't make it any less skill-based, because that broken unit is equally available to both players. If unit X is broken in a mirror matchup to the point that the player making more of unit X or the player that better controls unit X will win, it's based on which player has more skill at using unit X as much as possible, to as great an effect as possible. I don't deny that such a dynamic typically makes a matchup shitty for a spectator and that it makes it stupid/shallow from a strategic standpoint, but it is nevertheless perfectly fair and skill-based, and that's all I'm trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the matchup is good from a spectator's standpoint. I am not trying to argue that hellbats aren't broken in TvT. All I'm trying to argue is that TvT is still a fair and skill-based matchup. It's not fair since let's say hypothetically someone like Flash has better lategame TvT than Innovation but Innovation always manage to hellbatdrop him to death or at least cripple him before lategame.
then Flash has to be better in the early game than Innovation. i know some people want Flash to win everything because Flash, but the lategame isn't the only important part of the game.
|
On July 06 2013 04:11 painkilla wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:05 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 23:20 Black Gun wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup. so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%. its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective. But a broken unit in a mirror matchup doesn't make it any less skill-based, because that broken unit is equally available to both players. If unit X is broken in a mirror matchup to the point that the player making more of unit X or the player that better controls unit X will win, it's based on which player has more skill at using unit X as much as possible, to as great an effect as possible. I don't deny that such a dynamic typically makes a matchup shitty for a spectator and that it makes it stupid/shallow from a strategic standpoint, but it is nevertheless perfectly fair and skill-based, and that's all I'm trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the matchup is good from a spectator's standpoint. I am not trying to argue that hellbats aren't broken in TvT. All I'm trying to argue is that TvT is still a fair and skill-based matchup. It's not fair since let's say hypothetically someone like Flash has better lategame TvT than Innovation but Innovation always manage to hellbatdrop him to death or at least cripple him before lategame.
No, I don't buy that argument. It's perfectly fair in a mirror matchup to leverage being better at an earlier stage of the game than your opponent and kill him before your advantage disappears. In your example, Innovation has better midgame TvT, and is thus rewarded for it. In your example, Flash should have realized how important it is to be good at killing your opponent with hellbats in the midgame, and focused on that in practice, since the exact same tools are fairly available to him in the midgame.
My definition of fairness is both players having the exact same tools to use to try and achieve victory. Let's say one of those tools (hellbats) is a lot more effective than the others. Both players have the opportunity to choose which tools to focus on in practice. If we define a player's strategic ability as the ability to make choices in both practice and official matches that will most reliably bring him victory, then Innovation had better strategic ability than Flash in your example because he focused more on getting good at using the most effective tool in practice and proceeded to use the most effective tool to greater effect in the official match. And having better strategic ability than your opponent is a pretty fair-and-square way of being superior to your opponent, if you ask me.
|
On July 06 2013 04:17 Schelim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:11 painkilla wrote:On July 06 2013 04:05 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 23:20 Black Gun wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup. so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%. its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective. But a broken unit in a mirror matchup doesn't make it any less skill-based, because that broken unit is equally available to both players. If unit X is broken in a mirror matchup to the point that the player making more of unit X or the player that better controls unit X will win, it's based on which player has more skill at using unit X as much as possible, to as great an effect as possible. I don't deny that such a dynamic typically makes a matchup shitty for a spectator and that it makes it stupid/shallow from a strategic standpoint, but it is nevertheless perfectly fair and skill-based, and that's all I'm trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the matchup is good from a spectator's standpoint. I am not trying to argue that hellbats aren't broken in TvT. All I'm trying to argue is that TvT is still a fair and skill-based matchup. It's not fair since let's say hypothetically someone like Flash has better lategame TvT than Innovation but Innovation always manage to hellbatdrop him to death or at least cripple him before lategame. then Flash has to be better in the early game than Innovation. i know some people want Flash to win everything because Flash, but the lategame isn't the only important part of the game.
The game should be balance in the sense that it rewards early game (hellbat drop) and lategame equally. The way I see it now nobody can beat Innovation regardless of how their lategame looks like since Innovation just hellbat drops everybody to death. Look at mvp-Inno series. Innovation didn't go hellbats drop in the two games he lost, and went hellbat drops in the three games he won. Even Innovation admitted that if hellbats get nerfed his TvT might get worse.
|
On July 06 2013 04:23 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 04:11 painkilla wrote:On July 06 2013 04:05 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 23:20 Black Gun wrote:On July 05 2013 14:25 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 14:14 DidYuhim wrote:On July 05 2013 14:02 HolyArrow wrote:On July 05 2013 13:56 snakeeyez wrote:
That second game of flash verse innovation just felt wrong. Seeing flash down 30 scvs from like 2 drops cost him the game I mean how much skill was there in flash not being able to stop that? Seemed pretty stupid does that really mean innovation is the more skilled player? The better player won that game, certainly. They both had the same tools available to them, Flash knew what he was in for given the prevalence of Hellbats in TvT. I dunno, man. Surely, it was right to play the flat out broken hellbat drops on map with shortest by-air travel distance, but it's like saying that "hey, he survived til BL/Infestor, he's better player" in 2012. That analogy doesn't really work. BL/Infestor was considered imba because non-Z's had tons of trouble dealing with it. In this case, it's a mirror matchup. so? if one unit or strategy is absolutely dominant in a mirror matchup, it is a broken unit or strategy for this matchup, even though the racial winrates will always be 50%. its a bit similar to how mutas were broken in bw zvz. and guess what, zvz in bw was considered the worst matchup from a spectators perspective. But a broken unit in a mirror matchup doesn't make it any less skill-based, because that broken unit is equally available to both players. If unit X is broken in a mirror matchup to the point that the player making more of unit X or the player that better controls unit X will win, it's based on which player has more skill at using unit X as much as possible, to as great an effect as possible. I don't deny that such a dynamic typically makes a matchup shitty for a spectator and that it makes it stupid/shallow from a strategic standpoint, but it is nevertheless perfectly fair and skill-based, and that's all I'm trying to say. I am not trying to argue that the matchup is good from a spectator's standpoint. I am not trying to argue that hellbats aren't broken in TvT. All I'm trying to argue is that TvT is still a fair and skill-based matchup. It's not fair since let's say hypothetically someone like Flash has better lategame TvT than Innovation but Innovation always manage to hellbatdrop him to death or at least cripple him before lategame. No, I don't buy that argument. It's perfectly fair in a mirror matchup to leverage being better at an earlier stage of the game than your opponent and kill him before your advantage disappears. In your example, Innovation has better midgame TvT, and is thus rewarded for it. In your example, Flash should have realized how important it is to be good at killing your opponent with hellbats in the midgame, and focused on that in practice, since the exact same tools are fairly available to him in the midgame. My definition of fairness is both players having the exact same tools to use to try and achieve victory. Let's say one of those tools (hellbats) is a lot more effective than the others. Both players have the opportunity to choose which tools to focus on in practice. If we define a player's strategic ability as the ability to make choices in both practice and official matches that will most reliably bring him victory, then Innovation had better strategic ability than Flash in your example because he focused more on getting good at using the most effective tool in practice and proceeded to use the most effective tool to greater effect in the official match. And having better strategic ability than your opponent is a pretty fair-and-square way of being superior to your opponent, if you ask me.
ok, maybe tvt is still fair. but it sucks; both watching it and playing it has become so boring. additionally, the huge amount of damage potential of hellbat drops means that the matchup has become much more luckbased than necessary. even if a mirror matchup will always be fair, it can still be more or less luck-based. for example, both in bw and sc2, pvp suffers from many BO losses. in most cases, BO losses are simply luck-based. tvt in bw, by comparison, involved only very few luck aspects. imho, the impact of luck on a matchup should be considered when fans and also the game designers think and discuss about the state of the current matchups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
