|
On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 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. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose.
80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra..
|
On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 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. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra..
Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? That's where the 20% comes from.
|
On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 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:
[quote]
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. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted?
The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that.
|
On May 06 2011 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:11 Wazabo wrote:On May 06 2011 04:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:01 Wazabo wrote:
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.
That's absurd. Why should people stop playing zerg simply because perhaps it currently isn't up to par? That's akin to throwing and the towel and just giving up. Why play SC2 at all if you think it isn't balanced? Just quit! ....That kind of attitude is piss poor, believe it or not. I think you didn't understand very well my post. You shouldn't whine about your race, ever. Nobody forced you to pick it. No, I perfectly understood your post. I don't think you understood my response. If there appears to be a problem, FIX IT. ADDRESS IT. Don't just WALK AWAY from it, and "pick another race". The point of SC2 is that there are 3 races battling each other. If there is in fact an objective problem among them (I'm not personally saying there is), then it needs to be addressed. You can't solve it by just expecting people to walk away from it and play another race in which the problem does not persist.
Great, and the instant you discover a way in which the people in this thread are able to fix a balance problem, the last however-many pages of this thread (and the greater discussion among non-relevant-people, of which this is a part) will be more than just a gigantic waste of time and a stain on the community. Until then, you're all blowing out hot air.
|
On May 06 2011 04:21 Severian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:11 Wazabo wrote:On May 06 2011 04:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:01 Wazabo wrote:
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.
That's absurd. Why should people stop playing zerg simply because perhaps it currently isn't up to par? That's akin to throwing and the towel and just giving up. Why play SC2 at all if you think it isn't balanced? Just quit! ....That kind of attitude is piss poor, believe it or not. I think you didn't understand very well my post. You shouldn't whine about your race, ever. Nobody forced you to pick it. No, I perfectly understood your post. I don't think you understood my response. If there appears to be a problem, FIX IT. ADDRESS IT. Don't just WALK AWAY from it, and "pick another race". The point of SC2 is that there are 3 races battling each other. If there is in fact an objective problem among them (I'm not personally saying there is), then it needs to be addressed. You can't solve it by just expecting people to walk away from it and play another race in which the problem does not persist. Great, and the instant you discover a way in which the people in this thread are able to fix a balance problem, the last however-many pages of this thread (and the greater discussion among non-relevant-people, of which this is a part) will be more than just a gigantic waste of time and a stain on the community. Until then, you're all blowing out hot air.
You are right again, it's better to shut up and let the game broken if it's the case.
|
On May 06 2011 04:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:08 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 03:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote: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. That's not my point. My point is not to make an analogy. My point is exactly what you're saying. RPS is VERY different from SC2 and should not be evaluated the same way. The goal should not be balance... otherwise let's just play RPS. The goal should be dynamic strategy. That's why we play SC2. So stop talking about balance and start talking about dynamic strategy. I see what you're saying. However, that implies that because there is an endless amount of permutations and build orders and luck factors in which the game can be played, there is no objective basis for balance. This may be the case. However, that said, as time goes on, patterns begin to emerge that DO suggest certain changes are needed in order to level out the playing field properly that CAN'T simply be fixed by "more strategic thinking", etc. SC2 technically has many ways in which it can be played, but in the end, there is a finite amount of possibilities. Very good players with a good sense of the game can predict these patterns and offer input regarding their potential solutions.
YES, I agree with you. We should explore the different strategic possibilities, and if it turns out that all of them are closed, then the game should be fixed.
But do you see how LONG and difficult this discussion is? How many different strategic possibilities do you need to dive into? How many options do you need to try? I'm not a pro so I have no idea if those are exhausted or not, but likely they haven't been. And certainly, not all of those possibilities can be discussed on SOTG. That's why Day9 didn't want to get into it. He'd have to go over possibly hundreds of different strategic options. That's impossible when Idra is pigdeonholing the entire issue into 3-4 sentences.
And do you see that you can only have this discussion after moving beyond "balance" and start considering all the different strategic options? We need to move beyond winning percentages and "statistical significance" etc... before we can even start considering the myriad of strategic options available. If we are blinded by "balance" we'll never find those strategic options.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:18 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:04 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 04:01 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote: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. A SC2 player is a player who fight with a race "forever". Your comparaison works only if a RPS player is stuck with R, P or S. No player is stuck with T, P, or Z. You can switch races between every tournament or even every game on ladder. No SC2 player is stuck with a race "forever." This is what Day9 meant when he said that every game will eventually get to balance.... even if it meant that every player would switch to one race. That's why he doesn't want to talk about balance. He wants to talk about skill and strategy. RPS has no skill or strategy and a game where everyone played Terran has less strategy and skill. Therefore the discussion should be centered around strategy and skill, NOT balance. THIS is what Day9 meant. No, Day9 was saying a metagame will evolve and decide what are the optimal strategies and everything. A race or two may be completely eliminated from the metagame, but it will achieve 'balance' because we know what the optimal strategies are. As in, the metagame will eventually relax to a more equilibrium state, as more and more strategies are discovered. Right now, there are so many undiscovered strategies that the balance is almost impossible to determine. I have no idea what that has to do with what IdrA or anyone is saying about balance, of course. Because, as I said, an entire race could be eliminated from the metagame, which would be friggin' stupid and piss-poor design, even if it was 'balanced.'
This is exactly correct: Until the metagame evolves to a point where it is clear exactly where the balance issues lie, because there is little else left to discover, discussing balance is pointless: new developments can always occur that change things.
|
On May 06 2011 04:23 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:21 Severian wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:11 Wazabo wrote:On May 06 2011 04:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:01 Wazabo wrote:
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.
That's absurd. Why should people stop playing zerg simply because perhaps it currently isn't up to par? That's akin to throwing and the towel and just giving up. Why play SC2 at all if you think it isn't balanced? Just quit! ....That kind of attitude is piss poor, believe it or not. I think you didn't understand very well my post. You shouldn't whine about your race, ever. Nobody forced you to pick it. No, I perfectly understood your post. I don't think you understood my response. If there appears to be a problem, FIX IT. ADDRESS IT. Don't just WALK AWAY from it, and "pick another race". The point of SC2 is that there are 3 races battling each other. If there is in fact an objective problem among them (I'm not personally saying there is), then it needs to be addressed. You can't solve it by just expecting people to walk away from it and play another race in which the problem does not persist. Great, and the instant you discover a way in which the people in this thread are able to fix a balance problem, the last however-many pages of this thread (and the greater discussion among non-relevant-people, of which this is a part) will be more than just a gigantic waste of time and a stain on the community. Until then, you're all blowing out hot air. You are right again, it's better to shut up and let the game broken if it's the case.
Unless Dustin Browder is reading this thread and taking notes, yes, it is.
|
On May 06 2011 04:20 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 wrote:On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:33 randplaty wrote:
[quote]
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. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that.
Yeah right and he also stated it was a coin flip. I guess the coin lands on heads 80% of the time. Talk about imbalance.
|
Why is there so much talk about Day9 getting owned? He didn't wanna get in a shouting match with some hothead so he didn't. That's really all there is to it.
|
On May 06 2011 04:25 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:20 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 wrote:On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:
[quote]
This argument is not pragmatic at all, that's why day9 could not face with the unquestionable arguments of idra. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that. Yeah right and he also stated it was a coin flip. I guess the coin lands on heads 80% of the time. Talk about imbalance.
He won 80% because he could read.
He lost 20% because he could not read.
Idra pointed balance problems in early game, wich involve game design problems.
He took early game because EVERYONE know the early game, it has been mostly covered.
|
On May 06 2011 04:20 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 wrote:On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:33 randplaty wrote:
[quote]
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. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that.
Here's the thing: players like Sheth and Catz play the exact same players IdrA does. I watch their streams a lot and they frequently comment while or after they play. I have never (that I can remember) heard them incorrectly predict what the opponent is doing. Their losses (and they frequently admit this) are entirely due to execution mistakes and poor decisions.
|
On May 06 2011 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:11 Wazabo wrote:On May 06 2011 04:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:01 Wazabo wrote:
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.
That's absurd. Why should people stop playing zerg simply because perhaps it currently isn't up to par? That's akin to throwing and the towel and just giving up. Why play SC2 at all if you think it isn't balanced? Just quit! ....That kind of attitude is piss poor, believe it or not. I think you didn't understand very well my post. You shouldn't whine about your race, ever. Nobody forced you to pick it. No, I perfectly understood your post. I don't think you understood my response. If there appears to be a problem, FIX IT. ADDRESS IT. Don't just WALK AWAY from it, and "pick another race". The point of SC2 is that there are 3 races battling each other. If there is in fact an objective problem among them (I'm not personally saying there is), then it needs to be addressed. You can't solve it by just expecting people to walk away from it and play another race in which the problem does not persist.
Just tell me in what way Idra whining 24/7 (while winning tournaments) is fixing or adressing the possible problem.
Anyway, the point of SC2 as a sport is to see who is the better player, not to have three races battling eachother. Like day9 said in ten years maybe only one race will be played, who knows.
|
On May 06 2011 04:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:20 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 wrote:On May 06 2011 03:36 Leavzou wrote:
[quote]
This argument is not pragmatic at all, that's why day9 could not face with the unquestionable arguments of idra. Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for. Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent. We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that. Here's the thing: players like Sheth and Catz play the exact same players IdrA does. I watch their streams a lot and they frequently comment while or after they play. I have never (that I can remember) heard them incorrectly predict what the opponent is doing. Their losses (and they frequently admit this) are entirely due to execution mistakes and poor decisions.
Don't compare players like catz or sheth with idra...
I heard them (especially sheth) miss read their opponents, many times. It's a really really bad argument.
|
On May 06 2011 04:24 randplaty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 randplaty wrote:On May 06 2011 03:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 06 2011 03:57 randplaty wrote: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. That's not my point. My point is not to make an analogy. My point is exactly what you're saying. RPS is VERY different from SC2 and should not be evaluated the same way. The goal should not be balance... otherwise let's just play RPS. The goal should be dynamic strategy. That's why we play SC2. So stop talking about balance and start talking about dynamic strategy. I see what you're saying. However, that implies that because there is an endless amount of permutations and build orders and luck factors in which the game can be played, there is no objective basis for balance. This may be the case. However, that said, as time goes on, patterns begin to emerge that DO suggest certain changes are needed in order to level out the playing field properly that CAN'T simply be fixed by "more strategic thinking", etc. SC2 technically has many ways in which it can be played, but in the end, there is a finite amount of possibilities. Very good players with a good sense of the game can predict these patterns and offer input regarding their potential solutions. YES, I agree with you. We should explore the different strategic possibilities, and if it turns out that all of them are closed, then the game should be fixed. But do you see how LONG and difficult this discussion is? How many different strategic possibilities do you need to dive into? How many options do you need to try? I'm not a pro so I have no idea if those are exhausted or not, but likely they haven't been. And certainly, not all of those possibilities can be discussed on SOTG. That's why Day9 didn't want to get into it. He'd have to go over possibly hundreds of different strategic options. That's impossible when Idra is pigdeonholing the entire issue into 3-4 sentences. And do you see that you can only have this discussion after moving beyond "balance" and start considering all the different strategic options? We need to move beyond winning percentages and "statistical significance" etc... before we can even start considering the myriad of strategic options available. If we are blinded by "balance" we'll never find those strategic options.
Yes, I agree with the above. As long as the potentiality of the balance issue is acknowledged, it's reasonable to put it on the backburner in favor of strategic exploration for a while. The argument was influenced by alcohol, and it didn't help that IdrA was too quick to put forth his points. Day9 didn't help either because he sort of let IdrA interrupt him on almost every occasion and point. Day9 should have just said "STOP, it is my turn to speak, wait your turn" and I think the discussion would have been a little smoother.
P.S. I'm now at 321 posts. I'm going to leave it at that forever.
|
On May 06 2011 04:26 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:25 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:20 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 wrote:
[quote]
Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for.
Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent.
We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that. Yeah right and he also stated it was a coin flip. I guess the coin lands on heads 80% of the time. Talk about imbalance. He won 80% because he could read. He lost 20% because he could not read.
Bullshit. I really doubt it was because "he couldn't read."
|
My 2 cents on the zerg scouting issue:
It is clear that the opponent can deny all means of zerg pre-lair scouting by blocking the ramp, having good building position, and guarding the perimeter with stalker/sentry/marine.
It is unclear whether the zerg race is strong enough to overcome this fact by devising builds which can counter all potential strategies from their opponent, and thus unclear whether the game is balanced - we would have to wait and see.
However, regardless of balance, my question is: Should the game be designed in a way such that intel gathering drives particular builds, or should it be designed such that builds are created based on a lack of intel, so-called blanket defense builds? The former makes for a more interesting game, in my opinion.
|
On May 06 2011 04:26 Tewks44 wrote:
Why is there so much talk about Day9 getting owned? He didn't wanna get in a shouting match with some hothead so he didn't. That's really all there is to it.
its not that he did not wanted, he just couldnt.
|
On May 06 2011 04:31 Leavzou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:20 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:19 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:18 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 04:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:08 Baarn wrote:On May 06 2011 04:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 03:46 Leavzou wrote:On May 06 2011 03:43 Jman5 wrote:
[quote]
Because you can't answer them with just a quick soundbite or a witty retort. The truth is you need to show multiple replays that clearly show the exact timeframe when zerg is in the dark. You need to show how sacrificing an overlord and scouting the ramp does not reveal what the terran/protoss is going for.
Simply saying zerg can't scout is unequivocally false. There are so many things a zerg can do and so many tells a good zerg uses read his opponent.
We can sit here all day making all sorts of unverifiable claims, but without replay evidence it's pointless. Just look at the yesterday's stream of Idra, and get back with your arguments. I was under the impression that on his stream IdrA was reliably able to figure out what build his opponents were doing; that's what someone said earlier in the thread, anyway. Seems to know about 80% of the time. The other 20% find weakness in his build or he makes bad decisions. And that seems like great results, honestly. If you find and subsequently exploit a weakness in your opponent's build you deserve to win. If you make bad decisions you deserve to lose. 80% is still bad against random NA players for a legend like Idra.. Bullshit. If he makes bad decisions he deserves to lose. If his opponent finds weaknesses in his build he should lose. Did you read the post I quoted? The fact is idra did not make bad descisions. He just could not read his opponent because of balance problems, and lost because of that. Here's the thing: players like Sheth and Catz play the exact same players IdrA does. I watch their streams a lot and they frequently comment while or after they play. I have never (that I can remember) heard them incorrectly predict what the opponent is doing. Their losses (and they frequently admit this) are entirely due to execution mistakes and poor decisions. Don't compare players like catz or sheth with idra... I heard them (especially sheth) miss read their opponents, many times. It's a really really bad argument.
Okay. Give me examples. IdrA should be worlds beyond them and they play the same people. He should be better at prediction then them.
|
On May 06 2011 04:18 DoubleReed wrote:
I have no idea what that has to do with what IdrA or anyone is saying about balance, of course. Because, as I said, an entire race could be eliminated from the metagame, which would be friggin' stupid and piss-poor design, even if it was 'balanced.'
That's why at the end of the discussion they came to the conclusion that it's a game design issue not a balance issue. In otherwords, what makes the game more strategic? What makes the game more fun? What makes the game more watchable. Those are all more important than the raw numbers of balance between races.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
