|
On May 08 2017 22:34 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:31 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. So are you saying that 8-gate Adept rushing should be viable at the pro level, and sOs should've won that? Pretty sure it's the common sentiment among fans and players alike that cheese is the "filthy" strategy that you try and throw at the wall and see if it sticks, as one of the casters said. It's just kind of disgusting to see somebody win a series by cheesing. Nobody is saying that it should be an autowin, but it shouldn't also be an autoloss - or, more generally, there just need to be cheeses that can win against a supergreedy eco build. Otherwise we can change the game so that the terran starts with 3 OCs every game to skip the boring part at the start.
Of course. I understand the importance of cheese at the pro level and I'm all for keeping it as part of the game–as a sort of necessary evil. But it's still evil in the sense that skill can easily be superseded by luck and the better player will not win.
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:36 pvsnp wrote:
But it's still evil in the sense that skill can easily be superseded by luck and the better player will not win.
It's strategy in a strategy game.
|
On May 08 2017 22:28 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA Mule and chronoboost are actually really easy to balance out, so consider them balanced. However being able to almost win playing such a dumb style proves that the adept at its core is stupidly designed. It's not a matter of toss being imba or not, but toss being so badly designed (at least regarding this unit, dunno about the other parts) that such stupid games can happen, with the player doing the strategy having a legitimate shot at winning against a top world player.
No, there is no problem with the adept. Its a fairly standard unit. Once again the problem lies mostly with the lack of defenders advantage with fast warp-in of any kind.
|
On May 08 2017 22:31 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. So are you saying that 8-gate Adept rushing should be viable at the pro level, and sOs should've won that? Pretty sure it's the common sentiment among fans and players alike that cheese is the "filthy" strategy that you try and throw at the wall and see if it sticks, as one of the casters said. It's just kind of disgusting to see somebody win a series by cheesing.
Are you saying that it should be viable at the pro level to go for greedy builds against people who all-in a lot and then win against an all-in? And on and on it goes. "Deserving" is a stupid concept in video games and generally means "I like this guy more than this other guy and I'd like to pretend it's for objective reasons", as is the case here. It doesn't have a ton of connection with the expressed sentiment that you were responding to in the first place.
|
On May 08 2017 22:33 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. 3cc helped him actually, because he could power up mules so he had more leverage sacrificing scvs, and he could threaten sOs to mine at his third base location with mules, so sOs had to split himself a bit more if he didn't want INno to mine. The game is not as simple as: "don't make CC against allins", because it depends on other factors. For example during the 1-1-1 era, it was better to take a very fast 2nd base for the protoss (iirc at least), even tho the other player was doing a one base all-in, because the terran couldn't really punish it and it would help you against the inevitable push to have mined more ressources. edit: but yeah there is no point telling people to gtfo, it's not sOs fault if Blizzard allowed such games (that could arguably be considered silly, imo they are) to happen. sOs has nothing to lose and is standing last so of course he'll try such strategies against a better (at least in LotV, sOs was better than INno at times in HotS) player, if he manages to make it work he deserves to win, and if his win seems stupid we just need to talk to blizzard about it.
I get your point, but I want to point out that "if he manages to make it work, he deserves to win" is a tautology. A player only "deserves" to win when they have shown themselves to have superior skill compared to their opponent, and cheese doesn't do that. Obviously luck is an omnipresent factor in competition, but cheese allows luck to have a disproportionately high influence on victory/defeat. While cheese is most certainly necessary in order to prevent a stale meta, it's still a necessary evil that allows lesser players a higher chance to overcome superior ones.
|
the problem with adepts is that it looks horrible. The unit interactions are not fun.
It shades into mineral lines, basically suiciding for worker kills. It shades on top of the enemy army to get maximum dps out of it. There are no interesting interactions here.
That it's a cheese isn't the problem. Terran cheeses as well, but at least these cheeses are somewhat interesting to watch.
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias.
|
On May 08 2017 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:31 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. So are you saying that 8-gate Adept rushing should be viable at the pro level, and sOs should've won that? Pretty sure it's the common sentiment among fans and players alike that cheese is the "filthy" strategy that you try and throw at the wall and see if it sticks, as one of the casters said. It's just kind of disgusting to see somebody win a series by cheesing. Are you saying that it should be viable at the pro level to go for greedy builds against people who all-in a lot and then win against an all-in? And on and on it goes. "Deserving" is a stupid concept in video games and generally means "I like this guy more than this other guy and I'd like to pretend it's for objective reasons", as is the case here. It doesn't have a ton of connection with the expressed sentiment that you were responding to in the first place.
I actually answered this very question in my responses to the others.
TL;DR, I support cheese as a necessary evil because it ensures variety. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor.
|
On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias.
No. Players can have great builds. But who says they invented them themselves? It is 100% possible to win in SC2 as a much worse player.
|
On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
the problem with adepts is that it looks horrible. The unit interactions are not fun.
It shades into mineral lines, basically suiciding for worker kills. It shades on top of the enemy army to get maximum dps out of it. There are no interesting interactions here.
That it's a cheese isn't the problem. Terran cheeses as well, but at least these cheeses are somewhat interesting to watch.
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias.
You are using the same tautology I pointed out earlier. Luck cannot be discounted as a factor, nor ever eliminated from any kind of competition, but a player taking credit for good/bad luck and claiming they are "better" for it is simply ridiculous.
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:42 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:31 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. So are you saying that 8-gate Adept rushing should be viable at the pro level, and sOs should've won that? Pretty sure it's the common sentiment among fans and players alike that cheese is the "filthy" strategy that you try and throw at the wall and see if it sticks, as one of the casters said. It's just kind of disgusting to see somebody win a series by cheesing. Are you saying that it should be viable at the pro level to go for greedy builds against people who all-in a lot and then win against an all-in? And on and on it goes. "Deserving" is a stupid concept in video games and generally means "I like this guy more than this other guy and I'd like to pretend it's for objective reasons", as is the case here. It doesn't have a ton of connection with the expressed sentiment that you were responding to in the first place. I actually answered this very question in my responses to the others. TL;DR, I support cheese as a necessary evil because it ensures variety. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor.
You overestimate the influence of luck when it comes to cheese.
|
France13023 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:40 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:33 Poopi wrote:On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. 3cc helped him actually, because he could power up mules so he had more leverage sacrificing scvs, and he could threaten sOs to mine at his third base location with mules, so sOs had to split himself a bit more if he didn't want INno to mine. The game is not as simple as: "don't make CC against allins", because it depends on other factors. For example during the 1-1-1 era, it was better to take a very fast 2nd base for the protoss (iirc at least), even tho the other player was doing a one base all-in, because the terran couldn't really punish it and it would help you against the inevitable push to have mined more ressources. edit: but yeah there is no point telling people to gtfo, it's not sOs fault if Blizzard allowed such games (that could arguably be considered silly, imo they are) to happen. sOs has nothing to lose and is standing last so of course he'll try such strategies against a better (at least in LotV, sOs was better than INno at times in HotS) player, if he manages to make it work he deserves to win, and if his win seems stupid we just need to talk to blizzard about it. I get your point, but I want to point out that "if he manages to make it work, he deserves to win" is a tautology. A player only "deserves" to win when they have shown themselves to have superior skill compared to their opponent, and cheese doesn't do that. Obviously luck is an omnipresent factor in competition, but cheese allows luck to have a disproportionately high influence on victory/defeat. While cheese is most certainly necessary in order to prevent a stale meta, it's still a necessary evil that allows lesser players a higher chance to overcome superior ones.
That doesn't make any sense.
Kelazhur cheesed some random zergs at DH Austin, he didn't need to show himself to have superior skill.
He is better and he has no time fooling around with these players so he beats them the fastest way.
Cheese isn't some dirty thing, if you know the intricacies of it you can defend it if you execute well enough and the stat isn't broken.
It's just a tool that allows for faster and more diverse games, for inferior players to improve their shot of beating superior players, for superior players not to waste time with inferior players, or for equally skilled player to battle it out, giving a different rhythm for their bo5/bo7, or even for closing a final after "preparing" your opponent for the cheese, à la mvp against Squirtle.
Cheese hasn't to do with luck, it has to do with meta and "mindgames".
If you are supposed to be a cheesy player, you could gain an economic advantage if your opponent thinks he'd be better off early scouting you, and similarly, if you are Rain, people won't really expect you to cheese so you can chose to do it in a very important match.
Cheese is beautiful :D
|
i think its clear that apart from 1 base cheese, all-ins are not supposed to end the game immediately, assuming enough damage is done and defense is fairly competent.
|
On May 08 2017 22:44 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:42 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:31 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. So are you saying that 8-gate Adept rushing should be viable at the pro level, and sOs should've won that? Pretty sure it's the common sentiment among fans and players alike that cheese is the "filthy" strategy that you try and throw at the wall and see if it sticks, as one of the casters said. It's just kind of disgusting to see somebody win a series by cheesing. Are you saying that it should be viable at the pro level to go for greedy builds against people who all-in a lot and then win against an all-in? And on and on it goes. "Deserving" is a stupid concept in video games and generally means "I like this guy more than this other guy and I'd like to pretend it's for objective reasons", as is the case here. It doesn't have a ton of connection with the expressed sentiment that you were responding to in the first place. I actually answered this very question in my responses to the others. TL;DR, I support cheese as a necessary evil because it ensures variety. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. You overestimate the influence of luck when it comes to cheese.
Isn't the definition of cheese a build that relies on the opponent not scouting or preparing properly to win? There was a youtube video that Tastosis referenced about what exactly constitutes cheese, since the term is frequently misused. I remember it started by showing literal cheese (the kind you eat) and being like "this is not cheese."
|
On May 08 2017 22:42 Aunvilgodess wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias. No. Players can have great builds. But who says they invented them themselves? It is 100% possible to win in SC2 as a much worse player.
By what standard are you worse then? You arbitrarily define what "good" means if you don't apply it to results only.
"Oh that player won that way, but he isn't actually good!" It's just bias.
On May 08 2017 22:43 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
the problem with adepts is that it looks horrible. The unit interactions are not fun.
It shades into mineral lines, basically suiciding for worker kills. It shades on top of the enemy army to get maximum dps out of it. There are no interesting interactions here.
That it's a cheese isn't the problem. Terran cheeses as well, but at least these cheeses are somewhat interesting to watch.
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias. You are using the same tautology I pointed out earlier. Luck cannot be discounted as a factor, nor ever eliminated from any kind of competition, but a player taking credit for good/bad luck and claiming they are "better" for it is simply ridiculous.
And sometimes you are lucky even if you are "the better" player? Ofc there is luck in starcraft, but it does apply all the time and not only if you win with cheese. I am with you, you don't have the control over everything and in general longer macro games are more stable and thus "luck" means less. But still, results are results and at the end of the day a win is all that matters. If you do it by cheesing then you "deserve" that win, this is the highest level of play and not some random ladder game where it's actually a lot more about lucky timings and stupid stuff because the players are actually bad.
If we cannot define "the player who won the game is the better player" then there is no point to watch any of that and starcraft is a terrible competitive game.
|
Recommended games:
Match 1
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2017 19:24 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Stats vs ByuL game 1Awesome (0) 0% Good (1) 33% Average (1) 33% Meh (1) 33% Shit (0) 0% 3 total votes Your vote: Rate Stats vs ByuL game 1 (Vote): Awesome
(Vote): Good
(Vote): Average
(Vote): Meh
(Vote): Shit
On May 08 2017 19:39 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Stats vs ByuL game 2★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (1) 25% ★★★ (3) 75% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (0) 0% 4 total votes Your vote: Rate Stats vs ByuL game 2 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 19:55 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Stats vs ByuL game 3★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (1) 25% ★★★ (3) 75% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (0) 0% 4 total votes Your vote: Rate Stats vs ByuL game 3 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
Match 2
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2017 20:10 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Maru vs Patience game 1★★★★★ (1) 17% ★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★ (1) 17% ★★ (4) 67% ★ (0) 0% 6 total votes Your vote: Rate Maru vs Patience game 1 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 20:19 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Maru vs Patience game 2★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (1) 14% ★★★ (3) 43% ★★ (3) 43% ★ (0) 0% 7 total votes Your vote: Rate Maru vs Patience game 2 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 20:19 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Maru vs Patience game 3★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (1) 25% ★★★ (0) 0% ★★ (1) 25% ★ (2) 50% 4 total votes Your vote: Rate Maru vs Patience game 3 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
Match 3
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2017 20:36 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Dark vs Solar game 1★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (2) 33% ★★★ (3) 50% ★★ (1) 17% ★ (0) 0% 6 total votes Your vote: Rate Dark vs Solar game 1 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 20:47 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Dark vs Solar game 2★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★ (5) 100% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (0) 0% 5 total votes Your vote: Rate Dark vs Solar game 2 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 20:47 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Dark vs Solar game 3★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★ (2) 100% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (0) 0% 2 total votes Your vote: Rate Dark vs Solar game 3 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
Match 4
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2017 21:13 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Zest vs aLive game 1★★★★★ (1) 14% ★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★ (2) 29% ★★ (1) 14% ★ (3) 43% 7 total votes Your vote: Rate Zest vs aLive game 1 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 21:26 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Zest vs aLive game 2★★★★★ (1) 14% ★★★★ (1) 14% ★★★ (2) 29% ★★ (2) 29% ★ (1) 14% 7 total votes Your vote: Rate Zest vs aLive game 2 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 21:42 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Zest vs aLive game 3★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (1) 20% ★★★ (2) 40% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (2) 40% 5 total votes Your vote: Rate Zest vs aLive game 3 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
Match 5
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2017 21:56 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Innovation vs sOs game 1★★★★★ (8) 57% ★★★★ (1) 7% ★★★ (0) 0% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (5) 36% 14 total votes Your vote: Rate Innovation vs sOs game 1 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 22:06 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Innovation vs sOs game 2★★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★★ (1) 10% ★★★ (5) 50% ★★ (3) 30% ★ (1) 10% 10 total votes Your vote: Rate Innovation vs sOs game 2 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
On May 08 2017 22:19 Aunvilgodess wrote:Poll: Rate Innovation vs sOs game 3★★★★★ (16) 80% ★★★★ (0) 0% ★★★ (1) 5% ★★ (0) 0% ★ (3) 15% 20 total votes Your vote: Rate Innovation vs sOs game 3 (Vote): ★★★★★
(Vote): ★★★★
(Vote): ★★★
(Vote): ★★
(Vote): ★
|
On May 08 2017 22:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:42 Aunvilgodess wrote:On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias. No. Players can have great builds. But who says they invented them themselves? It is 100% possible to win in SC2 as a much worse player. By what standard are you worse then? You arbitrarily define what "good" means if you don't apply it to results only. "Oh that player won that way, but he isn't actually good!" It's just bias.
I *kind of* define it but definitely not arbitrarily. I define it using my brain.
|
France13023 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:42 Aunvilgodess wrote:On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias. No. Players can have great builds. But who says they invented them themselves? It is 100% possible to win in SC2 as a much worse player. By what standard are you worse then? You arbitrarily define what "good" means if you don't apply it to results only. "Oh that player won that way, but he isn't actually good!" It's just bias.
You are wrong tho.
The player who wins isn't necessarily the better player.
The player who wins was the better player for that game. Rest is just bias indeed.
|
On May 08 2017 22:50 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 08 2017 22:42 Aunvilgodess wrote:On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias. No. Players can have great builds. But who says they invented them themselves? It is 100% possible to win in SC2 as a much worse player. By what standard are you worse then? You arbitrarily define what "good" means if you don't apply it to results only. "Oh that player won that way, but he isn't actually good!" It's just bias. You are wrong tho. The player who wins isn't necessarily the better player. The player who wins was the better player for that game. Rest is just bias indeed.
Ok fair enough, a larger sample size defines the better player in general.
|
On May 08 2017 22:45 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:40 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:33 Poopi wrote:On May 08 2017 22:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 22:23 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:21 Saggymidgetbooty6969 wrote:mule good unit On May 08 2017 22:20 Weavel wrote:
Somehow even after Inno won i'm still angry about that game... typical terran... HE WON BUT IT WAS HARD OMG TOSS IMBA If you think sOs deserved to win that, gtfo. Several people in this very thread thought that it was a massive mistake for Inno to go 3cc because sOs was too likely to do an all-in. Well, he did an all-in, and Inno won the game anyway. But somehow he still deserved to, because gtfo if you disagree. 3cc helped him actually, because he could power up mules so he had more leverage sacrificing scvs, and he could threaten sOs to mine at his third base location with mules, so sOs had to split himself a bit more if he didn't want INno to mine. The game is not as simple as: "don't make CC against allins", because it depends on other factors. For example during the 1-1-1 era, it was better to take a very fast 2nd base for the protoss (iirc at least), even tho the other player was doing a one base all-in, because the terran couldn't really punish it and it would help you against the inevitable push to have mined more ressources. edit: but yeah there is no point telling people to gtfo, it's not sOs fault if Blizzard allowed such games (that could arguably be considered silly, imo they are) to happen. sOs has nothing to lose and is standing last so of course he'll try such strategies against a better (at least in LotV, sOs was better than INno at times in HotS) player, if he manages to make it work he deserves to win, and if his win seems stupid we just need to talk to blizzard about it. I get your point, but I want to point out that "if he manages to make it work, he deserves to win" is a tautology. A player only "deserves" to win when they have shown themselves to have superior skill compared to their opponent, and cheese doesn't do that. Obviously luck is an omnipresent factor in competition, but cheese allows luck to have a disproportionately high influence on victory/defeat. While cheese is most certainly necessary in order to prevent a stale meta, it's still a necessary evil that allows lesser players a higher chance to overcome superior ones. That doesn't make any sense. Kelazhur cheesed some random zergs at DH Austin, he didn't need to show himself to have superior skill. He is better and he has no time fooling around with these players so he beats them the fastest way. Cheese isn't some dirty thing, if you know the intricacies of it you can defend it if you execute well enough and the stat isn't broken. It's just a tool that allows for faster and more diverse games, for inferior players to improve their shot of beating superior players, for superior players not to waste time with inferior players, or for equally skilled player to battle it out, giving a different rhythm for their bo5/bo7, or even for closing a final after "preparing" your opponent for the cheese, à la mvp against Squirtle. Cheese hasn't to do with luck, it has to do with meta and "mindgames". If you are supposed to be a cheesy player, you could gain an economic advantage if your opponent thinks he'd be better off early scouting you, and similarly, if you are Rain, people won't really expect you to cheese so you can chose to do it in a very important match. Cheese is beautiful :D
In the situation you described, Kelazhur may or may not be the better player, but cheese doesn't prove that one way or the other. My point is that cheese introduces (or rather increases) uncertainty, which increases the probability than an inferior player defeats a superior one as you said.
In an ideal competition (esports, regular sports, whatever), the more skilled player/team always wins. Obviously this is impossible because real life has uncertainty/random chance/luck but that is how an idealized form of competition would function. Such an ideal might not be the most entertaining thing to watch (probably wouldn't because everyone would know who would win every time, assuming an accurate assessment of skill) but nevertheless that remains the ideal.
To some extent, it comes down to personal viewing preference, but from the standpoint of pure competition in its Platonic form, cheese is ugly, filthy, and repulsive. Anything but beautiful.
|
France13023 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:50 Poopi wrote:On May 08 2017 22:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 08 2017 22:42 Aunvilgodess wrote:On May 08 2017 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Also by definition the player who wins is the better player, everything else is just bias. No. Players can have great builds. But who says they invented them themselves? It is 100% possible to win in SC2 as a much worse player. By what standard are you worse then? You arbitrarily define what "good" means if you don't apply it to results only. "Oh that player won that way, but he isn't actually good!" It's just bias. You are wrong tho. The player who wins isn't necessarily the better player. The player who wins was the better player for that game. Rest is just bias indeed. Ok fair enough, a larger sample size defines the better player in general.
Depending on the metric we are willing to use!
It's not necessarily the best metric, altho it's a fair one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
