|
On September 06 2010 13:05 Grachuus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2010 08:29 brad drac wrote:On September 05 2010 07:08 Wussie wrote:On September 05 2010 06:37 therealmeal wrote:On September 05 2010 03:48 Grachuus wrote:
Imagine the string burns at a squared rate. As in it accelerates as time passes. I don't think any string in THIS universe burns like that. Why would it accelerate, exactly? Fire has no inertia or momentum... You have to assume that a given length of the string will burn in the same amount of time no matter how long the rest of the string has been on fire. That's physics. maybe the last quarter of the string was dipped in petrol making it burn faster, but still totaling to 1hour. Day9's solution would still be valid. That would be "information withheld". I don't believe the string not burning uniformly would be a natural assumption for the vast majority of people. That information should be included in the riddle. Again I'm going by the reasoning day9 provided. Which was we do not know the string burns evenly. I find that this particular bump in the road removes the possibility for any solution.
A string will burn unevenly if the string is made up of several materials in different portions. In this situations, whichever way they are burned, they will still burn at the same rate. Each portion of the string will be classified as a variable. A string of XY and YX materialwill burn at exactly the same rate.
Keeping that in mind.
I have two strings, XYZ and ABC.
X burns through in 30 minutes, Y in 20 minutes, Z in 10 minutes.
A burns through in 25 minutes, B in 20 minutes, C in 15 minutes.
I burn XYZ at both ends (XY and ZY) and start one end of ABC (AB).
30 minutes pass. In that time, X is burned through, as well as ZY. A has burnt completely, and so has a fourth of B.
I start the other end of ABC (CB).
15 minutes pass. In that time, B has burned through, as well as C.
Voila, 45 minutes.
It doesn't matter what speed it burns through, as long as the total time for one string to burn through entirely is 60 minutes. The example will remain true no matter how many materials are in the string.
|
No! #172, Stalife drops. I was looking forward to watching it today. I can't believe I missed it.
I hope Day[9] gets this one on blip.tv quickly, haha.
I was wanting to see how effective a Stalife drop is.
|
The "Stalife" drop looks to be extremely effective under the right circumstances, which I think are actually pretty common. Day[9]'s discussion tonight covered I believe one of the replays Stalife himself provided in his thread, which anyone should watch or rewatch for himself if unconvinced.
Stalife was also, if I recall, a very good BW Protoss player, so he commands skill and experience aplenty to warrant my respect at least.
|
|
|
On September 06 2010 13:13 Grachuus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 05:52 pygmis wrote:On September 03 2010 03:43 Grachuus wrote:On September 03 2010 01:33 debasers wrote:
I would like some serious 2v2 analysis. Not gold league stuff, i mean, 2x2 does have some strategy. Do not want. 1v1 competency reasonably translates to team environments. Those are subtle adjustments a person can make. 1v1 is the foundation of game play. 2v2 and greater are just bastardized versions of the game. Pretending that 3v3 and 4v4 represent solid reasonable game play is just crazy. You don't need to waste time on that garbage. Just because you haven't yet discovered the fun in coordinating with your teammates in 2+ v 2+ doesn't mean it couldn't be equally competitive or "pure" or whatever. I can understand it being more difficult on giving good advice on, but hey, one can hope  I have played plenty of team oriented RTS over the years and this one does not translate like many of the building RTS. It just doesn't. The game is about map control and unit choice which is severely diminished the more people there are on the map. Discussing strategic points that differentiate 2v2 from 1v1 is mostly WIFOM and minutia far and away from 1v1 play. In short your assumptions are off base. If someone asks for something different from Day9 and I think it's terrible I'm going to add my 2 cents as well. It's your right to ask and my right to ask for your asking to be not heeded.
You're wrong.
There's plenty of strategy that would be applicable for 2v2 instead of 1v1.
And I don't know why you're being so against having Day9 talk about some 2v2's. They're used in clan wars and competitions, there are money competitions for them. PLUS he's made 170 episodes so far, with 5 every week, I don't see why day9 shouldn't be devoting some time to 2v2.
|
On September 06 2010 15:06 toadstool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 13:13 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 05:52 pygmis wrote:On September 03 2010 03:43 Grachuus wrote:On September 03 2010 01:33 debasers wrote:
I would like some serious 2v2 analysis. Not gold league stuff, i mean, 2x2 does have some strategy. Do not want. 1v1 competency reasonably translates to team environments. Those are subtle adjustments a person can make. 1v1 is the foundation of game play. 2v2 and greater are just bastardized versions of the game. Pretending that 3v3 and 4v4 represent solid reasonable game play is just crazy. You don't need to waste time on that garbage. Just because you haven't yet discovered the fun in coordinating with your teammates in 2+ v 2+ doesn't mean it couldn't be equally competitive or "pure" or whatever. I can understand it being more difficult on giving good advice on, but hey, one can hope I have played plenty of team oriented RTS over the years and this one does not translate like many of the building RTS. It just doesn't. The game is about map control and unit choice which is severely diminished the more people there are on the map. Discussing strategic points that differentiate 2v2 from 1v1 is mostly WIFOM and minutia far and away from 1v1 play. In short your assumptions are off base. If someone asks for something different from Day9 and I think it's terrible I'm going to add my 2 cents as well. It's your right to ask and my right to ask for your asking to be not heeded. You're wrong. There's plenty of strategy that would be applicable for 2v2 instead of 1v1. And I don't know why you're being so against having Day9 talk about some 2v2's. They're used in clan wars and competitions, there are money competitions for them. PLUS he's made 170 episodes so far, with 5 every week, I don't see why day9 shouldn't be devoting some time to 2v2.
I don't think you understand what I just said there. I didn't say there was not plenty of strategy. I said it was shite. Big difference.
1v1 strength applies to the entire game.
2v2 strength does not.
|
You have absolutely no idea about the entirety of 2v2 strategy. The metagame in the team games isn't even remotely close to the development of the 1v1 metagame, despite being demonstrably home to more possibilities.
In short: stop talking out of your ass.
|
On September 06 2010 15:31 Grachuus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 15:06 toadstool wrote:On September 06 2010 13:13 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 05:52 pygmis wrote:On September 03 2010 03:43 Grachuus wrote:On September 03 2010 01:33 debasers wrote:
I would like some serious 2v2 analysis. Not gold league stuff, i mean, 2x2 does have some strategy. Do not want. 1v1 competency reasonably translates to team environments. Those are subtle adjustments a person can make. 1v1 is the foundation of game play. 2v2 and greater are just bastardized versions of the game. Pretending that 3v3 and 4v4 represent solid reasonable game play is just crazy. You don't need to waste time on that garbage. Just because you haven't yet discovered the fun in coordinating with your teammates in 2+ v 2+ doesn't mean it couldn't be equally competitive or "pure" or whatever. I can understand it being more difficult on giving good advice on, but hey, one can hope I have played plenty of team oriented RTS over the years and this one does not translate like many of the building RTS. It just doesn't. The game is about map control and unit choice which is severely diminished the more people there are on the map. Discussing strategic points that differentiate 2v2 from 1v1 is mostly WIFOM and minutia far and away from 1v1 play. In short your assumptions are off base. If someone asks for something different from Day9 and I think it's terrible I'm going to add my 2 cents as well. It's your right to ask and my right to ask for your asking to be not heeded. You're wrong. There's plenty of strategy that would be applicable for 2v2 instead of 1v1. And I don't know why you're being so against having Day9 talk about some 2v2's. They're used in clan wars and competitions, there are money competitions for them. PLUS he's made 170 episodes so far, with 5 every week, I don't see why day9 shouldn't be devoting some time to 2v2. I don't think you understand what I just said there. I didn't say there was not plenty of strategy. I said it was shite. Big difference. 1v1 strength applies to the entire game. 2v2 strength does not.
Don't know how to justify it being 'shite'...
It's entertaining to see some top pros play 2v2, and why not. And also I don't see how 2v2 is not about map control and unit choice as well..
I think you should stop there before you defend yourself with anymore bad comments.
|
Gretorp's strategy is to barely hold on. Let's see how he does that and pretend it's awesome!
Love day[9], but that, I think, was the massages talking through the cranium.
|
On September 06 2010 15:35 kzn wrote:
You have absolutely no idea about the entirety of 2v2 strategy. The metagame in the team games isn't even remotely close to the development of the 1v1 metagame, despite being demonstrably home to more possibilities.
In short: stop talking out of your ass.
*boggle*
9 has been focusing lately on how to make build orders, and how to improve play. Both of those things are applicable to 2v2. Using a 1v1 setting to teach such things only makes basic sense.
If you would pay attention to what I've been saying instead of just angrily replying to it you'd understand that.
I have fully and completely expressed that 2v2 is different in ways that are negatively beneficial to the discussions. However strength at 1v1 DOES apply to 2v2. That's why it makes more sense to discuss 1v1...
So why don't you think before you post next time sir.
|
On September 04 2010 19:15 NorthernerWuWu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The solution was elegant and I liked it of course from a logic standpoint. That said, the assumption that one end to the other is thirty and yet both ends yields fifteen is not only questionable but actually unlikely from a materials science point of view. Stuff doesn't really burn like that and all. Could you please clarify? + Show Spoiler +Do you mean that burning A->B doesn't equal the same time as burning B->A? Then yes, I agree, but for some reason I assume if it burns in one direction for some time, then it burns in the other direction for the same amount of time. Which if it's true means burning from both sides simultaneously should lead to exactly half the time. On September 04 2010 20:57 ThorShipFTW wrote:Same setup as the Day[9] string riddle, except now the question is: How can you measure 15 minutes? (Preferably without wasting any time sitting around) + Show Spoiler +
Light one string from both ends, and any point in between. The trick is to keep the one string burning at 4 points at all times, so it will take 1/4 as long to burn up.
For simplicity's sake, I'll assume you start your in-between-fire in the middle.
If it burns evenly, both string halves will finish at the same time--in 15 minutes.
If it doesn't burn evenly, when one half finishes burning immediately light the other half in the middle. Repeat as necessary.
As a bonus, you get to keep one of the strings!
Nice one, thanks. + Show Spoiler +I used repeated "cutting" in my description, but essentially the same idea: always cut the remaining string in two pieces and burn them from both sides, and when just one string remains, repeat. It's a little bit cheating though, because similar to Zeno's paradoxes, there's hidden infinity, which means in practice we may not be exactly precise, but also in practice it won't matter.
|
On September 06 2010 15:40 toadstool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 15:31 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 15:06 toadstool wrote:On September 06 2010 13:13 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 05:52 pygmis wrote:On September 03 2010 03:43 Grachuus wrote:On September 03 2010 01:33 debasers wrote:
I would like some serious 2v2 analysis. Not gold league stuff, i mean, 2x2 does have some strategy. Do not want. 1v1 competency reasonably translates to team environments. Those are subtle adjustments a person can make. 1v1 is the foundation of game play. 2v2 and greater are just bastardized versions of the game. Pretending that 3v3 and 4v4 represent solid reasonable game play is just crazy. You don't need to waste time on that garbage. Just because you haven't yet discovered the fun in coordinating with your teammates in 2+ v 2+ doesn't mean it couldn't be equally competitive or "pure" or whatever. I can understand it being more difficult on giving good advice on, but hey, one can hope I have played plenty of team oriented RTS over the years and this one does not translate like many of the building RTS. It just doesn't. The game is about map control and unit choice which is severely diminished the more people there are on the map. Discussing strategic points that differentiate 2v2 from 1v1 is mostly WIFOM and minutia far and away from 1v1 play. In short your assumptions are off base. If someone asks for something different from Day9 and I think it's terrible I'm going to add my 2 cents as well. It's your right to ask and my right to ask for your asking to be not heeded. You're wrong. There's plenty of strategy that would be applicable for 2v2 instead of 1v1. And I don't know why you're being so against having Day9 talk about some 2v2's. They're used in clan wars and competitions, there are money competitions for them. PLUS he's made 170 episodes so far, with 5 every week, I don't see why day9 shouldn't be devoting some time to 2v2. I don't think you understand what I just said there. I didn't say there was not plenty of strategy. I said it was shite. Big difference. 1v1 strength applies to the entire game. 2v2 strength does not. Don't know how to justify it being 'shite'... It's entertaining to see some top pros play 2v2, and why not. And also I don't see how 2v2 is not about map control and unit choice as well.. I think you should stop there before you defend yourself with anymore bad comments.
I think again you're lacking a deep read on my comments.
It's not that any of these concepts are not represented. It's that the more players introduced to a map the more diluted they become. Any one that believes a 4v4 is the peak of strategy really has no idea what laddering is all about. 4v4 is fun, not a competitive game for 99.99% of play. The larger the game the easier lame cheese strategies can be carried out with little to no effective chance for proper counter. Coordinating effective countermeasures against a 160 void ray offense is the height of stupidity.
I agree that it is entertaining to watch some professionals play on the higher levels. Pretending that there is a cohesive strategic body to a face rolling community is the issue. Day 9 has a substantive cast and if I want to watch team games I go somewhere else. I know plenty of gold quality players in diamond 2v2. So I don't really need to hear your justification of how great team games are.
Bad players hide there. Fin.
|
On September 06 2010 16:04 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2010 19:15 NorthernerWuWu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The solution was elegant and I liked it of course from a logic standpoint. That said, the assumption that one end to the other is thirty and yet both ends yields fifteen is not only questionable but actually unlikely from a materials science point of view. Stuff doesn't really burn like that and all. Could you please clarify? + Show Spoiler +Do you mean that burning A->B doesn't equal the same time as burning B->A? Then yes, I agree, but for some reason I assume if it burns in one direction for some time, then it burns in the other direction for the same amount of time. Which if it's true means burning from both sides simultaneously should lead to exactly half the time. Show nested quote +On September 04 2010 20:57 ThorShipFTW wrote:Same setup as the Day[9] string riddle, except now the question is: How can you measure 15 minutes? (Preferably without wasting any time sitting around) + Show Spoiler +
Light one string from both ends, and any point in between. The trick is to keep the one string burning at 4 points at all times, so it will take 1/4 as long to burn up.
For simplicity's sake, I'll assume you start your in-between-fire in the middle.
If it burns evenly, both string halves will finish at the same time--in 15 minutes.
If it doesn't burn evenly, when one half finishes burning immediately light the other half in the middle. Repeat as necessary.
As a bonus, you get to keep one of the strings!
Nice one, thanks. + Show Spoiler +I used repeated "cutting" in my description, but essentially the same idea: always cut the remaining string in two pieces and burn them from both sides, and when just one string remains, repeat. It's a little bit cheating though, because similar to Zeno's paradoxes, there's hidden infinity, which means in practice we may not be exactly precise, but also in practice it won't matter.
The original answer already showed a way to measure 15 minutes, because it was a two step process of first measuring 30min, then 15 more. It's the same process, but ignore the first 30minutes.
|
On September 06 2010 16:08 Grachuus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 15:40 toadstool wrote:On September 06 2010 15:31 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 15:06 toadstool wrote:On September 06 2010 13:13 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 05:52 pygmis wrote:On September 03 2010 03:43 Grachuus wrote:On September 03 2010 01:33 debasers wrote:
I would like some serious 2v2 analysis. Not gold league stuff, i mean, 2x2 does have some strategy. Do not want. 1v1 competency reasonably translates to team environments. Those are subtle adjustments a person can make. 1v1 is the foundation of game play. 2v2 and greater are just bastardized versions of the game. Pretending that 3v3 and 4v4 represent solid reasonable game play is just crazy. You don't need to waste time on that garbage. Just because you haven't yet discovered the fun in coordinating with your teammates in 2+ v 2+ doesn't mean it couldn't be equally competitive or "pure" or whatever. I can understand it being more difficult on giving good advice on, but hey, one can hope I have played plenty of team oriented RTS over the years and this one does not translate like many of the building RTS. It just doesn't. The game is about map control and unit choice which is severely diminished the more people there are on the map. Discussing strategic points that differentiate 2v2 from 1v1 is mostly WIFOM and minutia far and away from 1v1 play. In short your assumptions are off base. If someone asks for something different from Day9 and I think it's terrible I'm going to add my 2 cents as well. It's your right to ask and my right to ask for your asking to be not heeded. You're wrong. There's plenty of strategy that would be applicable for 2v2 instead of 1v1. And I don't know why you're being so against having Day9 talk about some 2v2's. They're used in clan wars and competitions, there are money competitions for them. PLUS he's made 170 episodes so far, with 5 every week, I don't see why day9 shouldn't be devoting some time to 2v2. I don't think you understand what I just said there. I didn't say there was not plenty of strategy. I said it was shite. Big difference. 1v1 strength applies to the entire game. 2v2 strength does not. Don't know how to justify it being 'shite'... It's entertaining to see some top pros play 2v2, and why not. And also I don't see how 2v2 is not about map control and unit choice as well.. I think you should stop there before you defend yourself with anymore bad comments. I think again you're lacking a deep read on my comments. It's not that any of these concepts are not represented. It's that the more players introduced to a map the more diluted they become. Any one that believes a 4v4 is the peak of strategy really has no idea what laddering is all about. 4v4 is fun, not a competitive game for 99.99% of play. The larger the game the easier lame cheese strategies can be carried out with little to no effective chance for proper counter. Coordinating effective countermeasures against a 160 void ray offense is the height of stupidity. I agree that it is entertaining to watch some professionals play on the higher levels. Pretending that there is a cohesive strategic body to a face rolling community is the issue. Day 9 has a substantive cast and if I want to watch team games I go somewhere else. I know plenty of gold quality players in diamond 2v2. So I don't really need to hear your justification of how great team games are. Bad players hide there. Fin.
No, I think you're not understanding my point. I made no mention of 4v4 at all. I only said that watching 2v2 would be fun and interetsing, particularly if they're high level.
Making broad statements about the skill levels of all 2v2 games is pretty stupid.
Day9 does his casts for entertainment as well as for high quality games. Have a look at his episode 100. He's going to be casting his dailies as much as can for as long as he can, so why can't he cast a couple of episodes for some good 2v2 games rather than his 100+ of 1v1 games.
|
On September 06 2010 17:31 toadstool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 16:08 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 15:40 toadstool wrote:On September 06 2010 15:31 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 15:06 toadstool wrote:On September 06 2010 13:13 Grachuus wrote:On September 06 2010 05:52 pygmis wrote:On September 03 2010 03:43 Grachuus wrote:On September 03 2010 01:33 debasers wrote:
I would like some serious 2v2 analysis. Not gold league stuff, i mean, 2x2 does have some strategy. Do not want. 1v1 competency reasonably translates to team environments. Those are subtle adjustments a person can make. 1v1 is the foundation of game play. 2v2 and greater are just bastardized versions of the game. Pretending that 3v3 and 4v4 represent solid reasonable game play is just crazy. You don't need to waste time on that garbage. Just because you haven't yet discovered the fun in coordinating with your teammates in 2+ v 2+ doesn't mean it couldn't be equally competitive or "pure" or whatever. I can understand it being more difficult on giving good advice on, but hey, one can hope I have played plenty of team oriented RTS over the years and this one does not translate like many of the building RTS. It just doesn't. The game is about map control and unit choice which is severely diminished the more people there are on the map. Discussing strategic points that differentiate 2v2 from 1v1 is mostly WIFOM and minutia far and away from 1v1 play. In short your assumptions are off base. If someone asks for something different from Day9 and I think it's terrible I'm going to add my 2 cents as well. It's your right to ask and my right to ask for your asking to be not heeded. You're wrong. There's plenty of strategy that would be applicable for 2v2 instead of 1v1. And I don't know why you're being so against having Day9 talk about some 2v2's. They're used in clan wars and competitions, there are money competitions for them. PLUS he's made 170 episodes so far, with 5 every week, I don't see why day9 shouldn't be devoting some time to 2v2. I don't think you understand what I just said there. I didn't say there was not plenty of strategy. I said it was shite. Big difference. 1v1 strength applies to the entire game. 2v2 strength does not. Don't know how to justify it being 'shite'... It's entertaining to see some top pros play 2v2, and why not. And also I don't see how 2v2 is not about map control and unit choice as well.. I think you should stop there before you defend yourself with anymore bad comments. I think again you're lacking a deep read on my comments. It's not that any of these concepts are not represented. It's that the more players introduced to a map the more diluted they become. Any one that believes a 4v4 is the peak of strategy really has no idea what laddering is all about. 4v4 is fun, not a competitive game for 99.99% of play. The larger the game the easier lame cheese strategies can be carried out with little to no effective chance for proper counter. Coordinating effective countermeasures against a 160 void ray offense is the height of stupidity. I agree that it is entertaining to watch some professionals play on the higher levels. Pretending that there is a cohesive strategic body to a face rolling community is the issue. Day 9 has a substantive cast and if I want to watch team games I go somewhere else. I know plenty of gold quality players in diamond 2v2. So I don't really need to hear your justification of how great team games are. Bad players hide there. Fin. No, I think you're not understanding my point. I made no mention of 4v4 at all. I only said that watching 2v2 would be fun and interetsing, particularly if they're high level. Making broad statements about the skill levels of all 2v2 games is pretty stupid. Day9 does his casts for entertainment as well as for high quality games. Have a look at his episode 100. He's going to be casting his dailies as much as can for as long as he can, so why can't he cast a couple of episodes for some good 2v2 games rather than his 100+ of 1v1 games.
Becouse
1. There are no noteworthy leagues in 2v2.
2. 2v2 takes (Lets be honest) less skill.
3. Day9 doesnt do his Dailys only for entertainment, he mostly does them for education.
|
2. 2v2 takes (Lets be honest) less skill.
To be honest... mastering (and I really mean MASTERing) 2v2 is doesn't take less skill, I mean think about it, 2 people have to work out timings and work in sync in tight battles, in 1v1 you only have to do it on your own, only you can screw up
and I know, the reason this isn't even considered as much is because people are focusing more in 1v1 (not saying I blame em, I am the same  ) I garantee you, if there would be more attention (and tournament money obviously) the complexity of 2v2 would surface pretty quickly
|
On September 06 2010 21:11 Warba wrote:
I garantee you, if there would be more attention (and tournament money obviously) the complexity of 2v2 would surface pretty quickly
If 'complexity' is the amount of dumb broken stuff you can do with 2 races together, sure.
|
by "broken" you mean "stuff that we have to find a way to beat it", right?
if not, then please provide an example, thx
|
What's a good way to beat double six pool?
|
On September 06 2010 21:49 Antisocialmunky wrote:
What's a good way to beat double six pool?
let your teammate build up if he isnt rushed (or the other way round), he (or you) can kill those 2 zergs alone most of the time, since their eco is terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
