|
On May 06 2011 03:09 randplaty wrote:
I agree with day9 on the balance discussion, but day9 basically got trounced by Idra. Idra had much better arguments and communicated himself WAY better than Day9. Day9 was right that Idra was only venting, but Idra painted Day9 into a corner and Day9 had no argument to back himself up. It's fine if Day9 doesn't want to get into a balance discussion, but he should have explained himself better. Not only did he give 0 reasons why Idra was wrong, he also gave almost no reasons as to why he didn't want to have the discussion. I still think day9 was right, but I think that a lot of people are going to come away with this thinking that day9's game knowledge is inferior to Idra's.
I just think it's interesting that a pro caster couldn't hold his own in an argument and think on his feet fast enough to get some good arguments against someone who doesn't cast and doesn't use words for a living. And InControl didn't rescue day9 either... probably because he's better friends with Idra?
I fully agree with this post and I feel like you hit the nail on the head.
IdrA was dancing circles around Day9 and Day9 just kept throwing the same two arguments back at him, and this is amazing to me because Day9 is an extremely well spoken person.
Anyways just wanted to give this fantastic post a shout out.
|
On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:33 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 03:16 DertoQq wrote:On May 06 2011 03:09 randplaty wrote:
I just think it's interesting that a pro caster couldn't hold his own in an argument and think on his feet fast enough to get some good arguments against someone who doesn't cast and doesn't use words for a living. And InControl didn't rescue day9 either... probably because he's better friends with Idra? Because Day9 probably agreed with Idra. But since he spend his time telling people how they should not blame balance for their lose etc.. I find it logical that he doesn't want to talk about balance while 20k people are watching him. I agree with you and Day9... but I would have hoped that Day9 could have articulated clearly why he didn't want to talk about balance and why balance requires a lengthy discussion. He talked about "what does balance even mean" and the entire game theory thing where every game will lead to balance, and I personally know exactly what he's talking about, but Idra had no clue what he was talking about and I think most of the audience probably doesn't know what he's talking about. He only referenced it and I think it confuses a lot of people. He should have articulated his arguments more clearly. This argument is not pragmatic at all, that's why day9 could not face with the unquestionable arguments of idra.
His argument is pragmatic. The problem is that it's conceptual and most people are not conceptual thinkers. Before entering into any argument, you need to know exactly what you're arguing about. You need to define the terms. The term "balance" has yet to be defined.
Idra argued that "balance" means that "every race has an equal chance of winning." Do you agree with that definition? I sure don't. Rock paper scissors is a game which every "race" has an equal chance of winning, but I don't considered RPS balanced.
|
On May 06 2011 03:15 eviltomahawk wrote:
Apparently, Day[9] had some troubles with carpal tunnel some years ago that may have been a contributing factor to why he doesn't play much nowadays.
IMO, Day[9] is a brilliant analyst despite not being an active player. Despite not possessing the necessary mechanics required to execute high level play, I think he possesses the right mindset and intellect to examine many builds, timings, and overall game design.
I think you and many others are exaggerating the level of SC2 pro players' mechanics. They are good, but most of them are not at the 'entirely different level than mortals' like SC:BW pro players were/are. I think it wouldn't take many months of Day9 practicing full time before he would be a top level pro player, and have no idea why other people think they should disagree.
I am not a 'Day9 fanboi', by the way.
|
Honestly, that was an embarrassing back and forth. The only intelligent observation in that whole argument was Tyler's "You want to not take risks, so people who take risks and succeed against them are going to be ahead. Make it up by being a better player".
Idra's a fine player, but his game insights are unenlightening as hell.
-Cross
|
On May 06 2011 03:43 Leavzou wrote:
The only reason for hiding his account is to hide his results, not to don't get spam.
Look at Idra :
Hes playing on his real account, and he does not care. Spams are not really anoying for him, he just ignore everyone. But he could take an other account to play macro games instead of facing cheeses.
Day9 hide his account because if he is not grandmaster atm, he lose all his credibility.
Why would that make him loose his credibility? He's already established himself, there's no denying that.
You say that spams are not annoying for Idra but just watching his stream shows you that the sort of retard behavior he gets for streaming annoys him. albeit he doesn't vent it out he does complain about it.
And even if that's the case then each to their own, your statement does not support the theory that day9 hides his account to hide his results. People are different, and you have to put that into the equation and not just state "since a can do it why can't b do it as well? Only logical reason is c".
|
On May 06 2011 03:50 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:33 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 03:16 DertoQq wrote:On May 06 2011 03:09 randplaty wrote:
I just think it's interesting that a pro caster couldn't hold his own in an argument and think on his feet fast enough to get some good arguments against someone who doesn't cast and doesn't use words for a living. And InControl didn't rescue day9 either... probably because he's better friends with Idra? Because Day9 probably agreed with Idra. But since he spend his time telling people how they should not blame balance for their lose etc.. I find it logical that he doesn't want to talk about balance while 20k people are watching him. I agree with you and Day9... but I would have hoped that Day9 could have articulated clearly why he didn't want to talk about balance and why balance requires a lengthy discussion. He talked about "what does balance even mean" and the entire game theory thing where every game will lead to balance, and I personally know exactly what he's talking about, but Idra had no clue what he was talking about and I think most of the audience probably doesn't know what he's talking about. He only referenced it and I think it confuses a lot of people. He should have articulated his arguments more clearly. This argument is not pragmatic at all, that's why day9 could not face with the unquestionable arguments of idra. His argument is pragmatic. The problem is that it's conceptual and most people are not conceptual thinkers. Before entering into any argument, you need to know exactly what you're arguing about. You need to define the terms. The term "balance" has yet to be defined. Idra argued that "balance" means that "every race has an equal chance of winning." Do you agree with that definition? I sure don't. Rock paper scissors is a game which every "race" has an equal chance of winning, but I don't considered RPS balanced.
So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ?
If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good.
And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic.
|
Nestea also said in his RO8 interview that zerg has to get lucky to win, which is in a way what Idra is saying
|
On May 06 2011 03:53 Leavzou wrote:
So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ?
If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good.
And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic.
So if Blizzard gave Terran a 100% winrate against Toss and Toss a 100% winrate against Zerg and Zerg a 100% winrate against Terran, so that all races have an overall win percentage of 50%... you'd consider that a balanced game?
|
The only thing I got out of that episode was that IdrA can't see the game past his own playstyle. He doesn't think it's possible to scout, therefore it is impossible. There is no way to argue with a brick wall, so I think Day9 was smart to let IdrA vent without sinking to his level of whine.
|
On May 06 2011 03:53 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:50 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:33 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 03:16 DertoQq wrote:On May 06 2011 03:09 randplaty wrote:
I just think it's interesting that a pro caster couldn't hold his own in an argument and think on his feet fast enough to get some good arguments against someone who doesn't cast and doesn't use words for a living. And InControl didn't rescue day9 either... probably because he's better friends with Idra? Because Day9 probably agreed with Idra. But since he spend his time telling people how they should not blame balance for their lose etc.. I find it logical that he doesn't want to talk about balance while 20k people are watching him. I agree with you and Day9... but I would have hoped that Day9 could have articulated clearly why he didn't want to talk about balance and why balance requires a lengthy discussion. He talked about "what does balance even mean" and the entire game theory thing where every game will lead to balance, and I personally know exactly what he's talking about, but Idra had no clue what he was talking about and I think most of the audience probably doesn't know what he's talking about. He only referenced it and I think it confuses a lot of people. He should have articulated his arguments more clearly. This argument is not pragmatic at all, that's why day9 could not face with the unquestionable arguments of idra. His argument is pragmatic. The problem is that it's conceptual and most people are not conceptual thinkers. Before entering into any argument, you need to know exactly what you're arguing about. You need to define the terms. The term "balance" has yet to be defined. Idra argued that "balance" means that "every race has an equal chance of winning." Do you agree with that definition? I sure don't. Rock paper scissors is a game which every "race" has an equal chance of winning, but I don't considered RPS balanced. So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ? If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good. And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic.
Yeah I'm not sure I follow the logic. Perhaps there is none. What exactly is meant by "RPS isn't balanced"? Objectively speaking, everything is equal. Every option can result in a tie, a win, or a loss. The rest is mind games. Mind games don't change objective facts about balance.
|
On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:53 Leavzou wrote:
So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ?
If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good.
And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic. So if Blizzard gave Terran a 100% winrate against Toss and Toss a 100% winrate against Zerg and Zerg a 100% winrate against Terran, so that all races have an overall win percentage of 50%... you'd consider that a balanced game?
Don't be obtuse. That's obviously not what any normal community member would mean by "each race has an equal chance of winning."
|
On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:53 Leavzou wrote:
So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ?
If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good.
And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic. So if Blizzard gave Terran a 100% winrate against Toss and Toss a 100% winrate against Zerg and Zerg a 100% winrate against Terran, so that all races have an overall win percentage of 50%... you'd consider that a balanced game?
Comparing apples to oranges. Starcraft 2 is much more dynamic than RPS, which is obviously a very static game. You can't make that analogy to prove your point - logical fallacy.
|
God Incontrol used to be in the debate club? He's so ridiculous when he's arguing with tyler. Blowing stuff out of proportion, ridiculous sarcastic mocking and false analogies. I just lost a lot of respect for him...
|
1000 pages, holy fucking shit
|
Holy crap, 1000 pages of this epic thread has been reached.
Anyways, I think people underestimate how much time Day9 spends with SC2. He can't play as much because he's heavily involved in the last weeks of graduate school, though this doesn't stop him from spending tons of time analyzing replays before each of his dailies to develop a general structure to his lectures.
|
On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:53 Leavzou wrote:
So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ?
If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good.
And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic. So if Blizzard gave Terran a 100% winrate against Toss and Toss a 100% winrate against Zerg and Zerg a 100% winrate against Terran, so that all races have an overall win percentage of 50%... you'd consider that a balanced game?
You definitly miss anderstand the point.
A RPS player is a neutral player who chose BETWEEN R P or S for ONE match
A SC2 player is a player who fight with ONE race FOR EVER.
Your comparaison works only if a RPS player is stuck with R, P or S.
|
Day9 is right, it's non-sense to talk about balance in any kind of competition when both players are on the same field, aka playing the same game. Nobody is forcing Idra or any other zerg in the planet to play zerg. If they feel it's so broken change race already.
Oh wait, it's better to bitch and cry about balance 24/7 while winning tournaments.
|
On May 06 2011 03:59 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
Blowing stuff out of proportion
That's how the whole argument started; by Tyler making a huge deal about a completely neutral statement and then proceeding to make rather bizarre claims about posting on TL in general. I find it odd anyone would focus their ire on incontrol in that exchange. Can't really explain it by anything other than blind incontrol hate.
|
On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:53 Leavzou wrote:
So what is your definition of the balance if it's not that "every race has an equal chance of winning." ?
If you don't agree with it, it means that one race is better to win than an other, and I don't see how it can be good.
And RPS IS balanced, you can't argue the opposite, it's just mathematic. So if Blizzard gave Terran a 100% winrate against Toss and Toss a 100% winrate against Zerg and Zerg a 100% winrate against Terran, so that all races have an overall win percentage of 50%... you'd consider that a balanced game?
Ya but everyone would have to pick random. If Zerg > Terran > Toss > Zerg and both players played random, then it would be balanced. Each person has the same probability of winning as the other.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On May 06 2011 03:59 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
God Incontrol used to be in the debate club? He's so ridiculous when he's arguing with tyler. Blowing stuff out of proportion, ridiculous sarcastic mocking and false analogies. I just lost a lot of respect for him...
Fortunately you had SO much respect for me there is still a LOT remaining.
HA! I WIN!
VICTORY FOR INCONTROL IN 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
