|
On May 08 2017 22:49 Aunvilgodess 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. I *kind of* define it but definitely not arbitrarily. I define it using my brain.
No you just use your emotions. "but he didn't play macro thus he doesn't deserve it!!!"
I mean i do it all the time as well simply because i am a fan of player x and not player y, but looking at it "objectively" it's bs.
|
On May 08 2017 22:52 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:51 The_Red_Viper wrote: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.
It's at least a consistent one, not some broken "eye test" which always is heavily biased.
|
France12912 Posts
On May 08 2017 22:52 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:45 Poopi wrote: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.
Cheese isn't ugly at all.
Kelazhur didn't really cheese tho, he used 3rax reaper, it has been nerfed to the ground so it's kind of shit now and doesn't really work. It isn't even supposed to kill the guy except if you are massively superior.
The fact that he can win a bo3 in 10mn using the same build twice in a row, that isn't supposed to outright kill the opponent, proves that he is the better player.
In the same way Life proved he was superior to Lilbow.
Longer games also tend to introduce / increase uncertainty, especially when both players are very good, because it allows for more things to happen, and mistakes (and humans are prone to make mistakes) to happen.
That's why it's very dangerous to let your opponent live when you have the advantage, if there is a low risk for a winning move the safe bet in the long run will be to try it.
Cheese is beautiful in the same way a macro game is beautiful, it allows players to shine in different areas, and game length diversity is better for the game than always super long macro games (or super short), remember swarm host era, or blink era.
So what we need is a healthy mix of cheeses and macro games.
|
On May 08 2017 23:01 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:52 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 22:45 Poopi wrote: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. Cheese isn't ugly at all. Kelazhur didn't really cheese tho, he used 3rax reaper, it has been nerfed to the ground so it's kind of shit now and doesn't really work. It isn't even supposed to kill the guy except if you are massively superior. The fact that he can win a bo3 in 10mn using the same build twice in a row, that isn't supposed to outright kill the opponent, proves that he is the better player. In the same way Life proved he was superior to Lilbow. Longer games also tend to introduce / increase uncertainty, especially when both players are very good, because it allows for more things to happen, and mistakes (and humans are prone to make mistakes) to happen. That's why it's very dangerous to let your opponent live when you have the advantage, if there is a low risk for a winning move the safe bet in the long run will be to try it. Cheese is beautiful in the same way a macro game is beautiful, it allows players to shine in different areas, and game length diversity is better for the game than always super long macro games (or super short), remember swarm host era, or blink era. So what we need is a healthy mix of cheeses and macro games.
What you said is very much correct, in that we need both cheese and macro games for a healthy meta.
However, I disagree on the notion of beautiful cheese. I'm not familiar with the specific example of Kelazhur (didn't watch that series) but assuming he cheesed much like Life cheesed Lilbow, then my point still stands. To clarify, I never said that cheese does not require skill. It demands skill just as much as any other build, more or less. What it does is dump a shitload of uncertainty into the game such that it becomes a contest decided as much by luck as it is by skill.
You are also correct in that longer games increase uncertainty, but making fewer mistakes over time whilst managing economy, army, etc simultaneously–is that not the definition of skill?
The difference lies in the fact that cheese determines the outcome of a game based on luck+skill, whereas macro games rely on skill (luck obviously still a factor but luck is impossible to eliminate so we can normalize that level of luck as zero).
|
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. Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:43 pvsnp wrote: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.
I think you are confusing correlation with causation. Yes the better player will win more often, because they are better. This does not mean that the best player always wins, otherwise what we mean by "best" is itself meaningless. That's why I pointed out it's a tautology.
|
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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor.
But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games.
|
Big shoutout to the SSL for putting predictably the controversial games last so that we don't have to endure this disucssion for the whole day
|
France12912 Posts
On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad 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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games.
The cool thing about RTS is that people think you are a good "strategist" when you are good at RTS, but in reality there is no more strategy than in FPS or whatever esport game.
It's all about meta (what works now, what doesn't, to simplify) and mechanical skill.
For each and every game.
Oh yeah sorry the team games also have a "chemistry" component in it. But that's it.
|
On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad 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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games.
???
Of course I will question whether he deserves to win. Take his most famous defeat, against Soulkey. INnoVation didn't deserve to win because he didn't have the skill (in this case mental fortitude) to defeat Soulkey even if he proved that he was the superior macro player. Yes, Soulkey won games using Roach/Bane busts but that was not the reason why Inno lost. He lost because Soulkey outplayed him in the mental game, which is equally (if not more) important than the video game.
Not sure why you seem to think I'm some biased Inno fan. I agree that Inno is bad at strategy, it's by far his biggest weakness and one that I'm frankly shocked that he's managed to overcome. (To be precise, as I think stuchiu wrote, Inno is bad at adapting and analyzing on the fly. His preparation and advance-planning strategy is pretty good).
|
On May 08 2017 23:18 pvsnp 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. On May 08 2017 22:43 pvsnp wrote: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. I think you are confusing correlation with causation. Yes the better player will win more often, because they are better. This does not mean that the best player always wins, otherwise what we mean by "best" is itself meaningless. That's why I pointed out it's a tautology.
No i am simply saying that you have no ground to say that game a was more abotu luck than game b. It's just subjective bias. Is it "more lucky" if the player actually planned it all along and did his research and came to the conclusion that strategy X on map y against player z is the best way to win? It might look like luck to you who doesn't know any of the preparation, but it's not necessarily any more luck than other scenarios.
At the same time ina long macro game where both players play fairly safe and nothing happens a doom drop decides the whole game. Was that really more about "skill" ? it's worthless to take that position, results are all that matters if we agree that the game is balanced enough to be a competitive game.
|
On May 08 2017 23:25 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. The cool thing about RTS is that people think you are a good "strategist" when you are good at RTS, but in reality there is no more strategy than in FPS or whatever esport game. It's all about meta (what works now, what doesn't, to simplify) and mechanical skill. For each and every game. Oh yeah sorry the team games also have a "chemistry" component in it. But that's it.
Maybe true for a terran, but if you're bad at strategy as a toss you're not going to achieve anything unless you are insanely good at mechanics (like Rain, but even Rain wasn't Innovation-level bad at strategy, he was just a little weak).
|
On May 08 2017 22:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:49 Aunvilgodess 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. I *kind of* define it but definitely not arbitrarily. I define it using my brain. No you just use your emotions. "but he didn't play macro thus he doesn't deserve it!!!" I mean i do it all the time as well simply because i am a fan of player x and not player y, but looking at it "objectively" it's bs.
No, its not, because you can just get lucky. Luck is a significant factor in the early game.
|
On May 08 2017 23:26 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. ??? Of course I will question whether he deserves to win. Take his most famous defeat, against Soulkey. INnoVation didn't deserve to win because he didn't have the skill (in this case mental fortitude) to defeat Soulkey even if he proved that he was the superior macro player. Yes, Soulkey won games using Roach/Bane busts but that was not the reason why Inno lost. He lost because Soulkey outplayed him in the mental game, which is equally (if not more) important than the video game. Not sure why you seem to think I'm some biased Inno fan. I agree that Inno is bad at strategy, it's by far his biggest weakness and one that I'm frankly shocked that he's managed to overcome.
Well in this game he made a very bad strategical decision and someone questioned whether he deserved to win and you told him to gtfo.
|
France12912 Posts
On May 08 2017 23:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:25 Poopi wrote:On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. The cool thing about RTS is that people think you are a good "strategist" when you are good at RTS, but in reality there is no more strategy than in FPS or whatever esport game. It's all about meta (what works now, what doesn't, to simplify) and mechanical skill. For each and every game. Oh yeah sorry the team games also have a "chemistry" component in it. But that's it. Maybe true for a terran, but if you're bad at strategy as a toss you're not going to achieve anything unless you are insanely good at mechanics (like Rain, but even Rain wasn't Innovation-level bad at strategy, he was just a little weak).
It has to do with meta and not "strategy", even for protoss and zergs.
If you are the one to define the meta that just means you are one foot ahead in the meta, not that you are a better strategist or whatever.
|
On May 08 2017 23:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:26 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. ??? Of course I will question whether he deserves to win. Take his most famous defeat, against Soulkey. INnoVation didn't deserve to win because he didn't have the skill (in this case mental fortitude) to defeat Soulkey even if he proved that he was the superior macro player. Yes, Soulkey won games using Roach/Bane busts but that was not the reason why Inno lost. He lost because Soulkey outplayed him in the mental game, which is equally (if not more) important than the video game. Not sure why you seem to think I'm some biased Inno fan. I agree that Inno is bad at strategy, it's by far his biggest weakness and one that I'm frankly shocked that he's managed to overcome. Well in this game he made a very bad strategical decision and someone questioned whether he deserved to win and you told him to gtfo.
I told him to gtfo if he thought sOs deserved to win. I don't think Inno deserved to win Game 3 either.
|
On May 08 2017 23:32 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 23:26 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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
[quote]
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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. ??? Of course I will question whether he deserves to win. Take his most famous defeat, against Soulkey. INnoVation didn't deserve to win because he didn't have the skill (in this case mental fortitude) to defeat Soulkey even if he proved that he was the superior macro player. Yes, Soulkey won games using Roach/Bane busts but that was not the reason why Inno lost. He lost because Soulkey outplayed him in the mental game, which is equally (if not more) important than the video game. Not sure why you seem to think I'm some biased Inno fan. I agree that Inno is bad at strategy, it's by far his biggest weakness and one that I'm frankly shocked that he's managed to overcome. Well in this game he made a very bad strategical decision and someone questioned whether he deserved to win and you told him to gtfo. I told him to gtfo if he thought sOs deserved to win. I don't think Inno deserved to win Game 3 either.
Ok, fair enough. The post you reacted to shouldn't really elicit that response if you don't think Inno deserved to win though.
|
On May 08 2017 23:29 Aunvilgodess wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 22:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 08 2017 22:49 Aunvilgodess 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. I *kind of* define it but definitely not arbitrarily. I define it using my brain. No you just use your emotions. "but he didn't play macro thus he doesn't deserve it!!!" I mean i do it all the time as well simply because i am a fan of player x and not player y, but looking at it "objectively" it's bs. No, its not, because you can just get lucky. Luck is a significant factor in the early game.
And you can "just get lucky" with your doomdrop. Or your army movement which then means you have the lead in that basetrade, or x,y,z.
Luck is part of starcraft. In every single game being played. If cheese was that strong every player would cheese all the time.
"cheese" and all these other terms are just words used by people who are salty their favorite player lost. In reality it's all just strategy and each strategy has weaknesses and strengths. Some people are better at choosing their strategy/decision making, some are better at macro, some are better at micro. Lots of different factors to win a game, even a cheese game.
Results are the important part. "Eye test" is biased.
|
On May 08 2017 23:32 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 23:26 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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
[quote]
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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. ??? Of course I will question whether he deserves to win. Take his most famous defeat, against Soulkey. INnoVation didn't deserve to win because he didn't have the skill (in this case mental fortitude) to defeat Soulkey even if he proved that he was the superior macro player. Yes, Soulkey won games using Roach/Bane busts but that was not the reason why Inno lost. He lost because Soulkey outplayed him in the mental game, which is equally (if not more) important than the video game. Not sure why you seem to think I'm some biased Inno fan. I agree that Inno is bad at strategy, it's by far his biggest weakness and one that I'm frankly shocked that he's managed to overcome. Well in this game he made a very bad strategical decision and someone questioned whether he deserved to win and you told him to gtfo. I told him to gtfo if he thought sOs deserved to win. I don't think Inno deserved to win Game 3 either.
How does no player "deserve" to win the game?
|
On May 08 2017 23:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:32 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 23:30 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 23:26 pvsnp wrote:On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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:
[quote]
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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. ??? Of course I will question whether he deserves to win. Take his most famous defeat, against Soulkey. INnoVation didn't deserve to win because he didn't have the skill (in this case mental fortitude) to defeat Soulkey even if he proved that he was the superior macro player. Yes, Soulkey won games using Roach/Bane busts but that was not the reason why Inno lost. He lost because Soulkey outplayed him in the mental game, which is equally (if not more) important than the video game. Not sure why you seem to think I'm some biased Inno fan. I agree that Inno is bad at strategy, it's by far his biggest weakness and one that I'm frankly shocked that he's managed to overcome. Well in this game he made a very bad strategical decision and someone questioned whether he deserved to win and you told him to gtfo. I told him to gtfo if he thought sOs deserved to win. I don't think Inno deserved to win Game 3 either. Ok, fair enough. The post you reacted to shouldn't really elicit that response if you don't think Inno deserved to win though.
Balance whine (of any kind) triggers me. 
I tend to automatically favor the side that is being whined about.
|
On May 08 2017 23:31 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2017 23:29 Nebuchad wrote:On May 08 2017 23:25 Poopi wrote:On May 08 2017 23:21 Nebuchad wrote: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
[quote]
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. By "deserving" I mean showing superior skill, which cheese contradicts because of the heavy luck factor. But like, Inno is embarrassingly bad at strategy. He is so bad at strategy that it makes me question his choice to rely on a strategy game for his profession, I've never seen him outplay anyone strategically in any game. The community even recognizes his terrible level and calls him a machine to display that he actually doesn't think about what he's doing, he just mashes button really fast (and really accurately) - however since he's playing the race of good it's a funny trait of him and not something worth despising, like being bad at execution for a toss. And yet you're never going to question that he deserves to win games. The cool thing about RTS is that people think you are a good "strategist" when you are good at RTS, but in reality there is no more strategy than in FPS or whatever esport game. It's all about meta (what works now, what doesn't, to simplify) and mechanical skill. For each and every game. Oh yeah sorry the team games also have a "chemistry" component in it. But that's it. Maybe true for a terran, but if you're bad at strategy as a toss you're not going to achieve anything unless you are insanely good at mechanics (like Rain, but even Rain wasn't Innovation-level bad at strategy, he was just a little weak). It has to do with meta and not "strategy", even for protoss and zergs. If you are the one to define the meta that just means you are one foot ahead in the meta, not that you are a better strategist or whatever.
First of all, yeah, of course, if you are ahead in the meta that means you have outplayed your opponent on a strategical level, that's what being ahead means.
Second, you can't reduce the strategical level of this game to just meta. Even in this period of TvP where you are arguably forced to go adept phoenix, you can still outstrategize your opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
