EPTTry to find a sport with imbalanced tools... owait, this does not exist.
Just think about why there are rules for the sport's tools. (like bikes etc...)
Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 1003
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Leavzou
France156 Posts
Try to find a sport with imbalanced tools... owait, this does not exist. Just think about why there are rules for the sport's tools. (like bikes etc...) | ||
|
Maliris
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:03 iNcontroL wrote: Fortunately you had SO much respect for me there is still a LOT remaining. HA! I WIN! VICTORY FOR INCONTROL IN 2011 Don't think so somehow buddy anyway pretty sad that being in the debate club is all about ad hominem attacks, interrupting opposition and manipulation. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On May 06 2011 03:45 MorroW wrote: what idra said about scouting and responding makes perfect sense to me that's just a succinct description of how zergs generally lose games. idra did that well. but the issue is balance. how do you go from describing how zergs lose games to saying the game is imbalanced? it's not a discussion fit for the podcast. there are some parallels in academia. in science, you haven't proven something until you've proven something through rigid scientific method that has been peer-reviewed. in math, you haven't proven something until you've done the numbers. even in lit/phil/hist etc, you have to do tons of research and write a comprehensive paper. an academic would never get too invested in a discussion that isn't referring to work that hasn't already been done. if it's all about work that needs to be done, then either do the work or stop talking about it. now, idra has certainly done a lot of great work, and gathered some good evidence, that could be used for a discussion on balance. but it's a drop in the bucket. i guess he feels it's enough to make any future work irrelevant and sean doesnt. ---- the excessively argumentative nature of some of these discussions is really hurting the show and im going to purposely try to avoid it. debates that aren't seen through to the very end are worthless (and we can never do that unless it's an incredibly simple issue). they accomplish nothing. one goal of the show is to extract as much useful knowledge as possible out of our pillars and guests. argument and debate are absolutely horrible formats for doing that. especially when debaters get more concerned with winning a debate than understanding their opponent's position. that's inimical to spreading information. it truly encourages one guy on the show to stop someone else on the show from getting their thoughts out so for example, every single one of idra's insights about zerg could be shared without throwing him in a debate against someone who thinks that we can't presently conclude that the game is imbalanced. and i think they can be shared much more efficiently and pleasantly without debate. any time the pillars and guests on the show talk about anything, that's all we have to do is make good points, provide good insights. and then people listening can decide whatever they want. of course, we should be able to engage with each other and criticize each other's points, but debate is a useless extra dimension, that can only detract from constructive discourse | ||
|
Zavior
Finland753 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:25 Whitewing wrote: 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. Right, and I personally agree with IdrA. The problems with zerg are not going to be solved with metagame shifts. There are specific, fundamental issues that they are having which he pointed out. I predict zerg to do very poorly as the months continue until HotS comes out. I don't think there are "balance changes" that will fix zerg. I think they need something more drastic like an additional unit. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On May 06 2011 03:57 artanis2 wrote: I definitely agree with this. What could Day9 have said? If he said anything other than he agreed Idra would have just spent 10 minutes telling him why he was wrong. Sure, Day9 looked weak in that argument but had he responded in any way other than they would need evidence to look at first, he would have gone against one of the core principles he's said on his show many times.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. I like Idra but I think his mindset is flawed. It's almost as though he has an inferiority complex. They even pointed it out by asking him which race he thought was weakest in SC1 (Which he dodged but they all knew what he was going to say). I was watching his stream yesterday and all he was saying the whole time is that the other person he was playing sucked for basically every opponent, and when he lost he never accepted responsibility, but claimed that either the other person got lucky or that it was something to do with the other races being better. Not only that but he said he's started doing roach/ling aggression on fast expanding protosses, yet if a protoss or terran does early aggression to him when he FEs he complains about it. He's a fantastic player but he needs to stop avoiding blame and feeling he deserves the win, when in reality the player who wins deserves the win. Everyone loses, so what? Edit: the excessively argumentative nature of some of these discussions is really hurting the show and im going to purposely try to avoid it. Thank you Tyler, I definitely agree it has hindered the show recently. Tasteless had it right when he said he wanted mommy and daddy to stop fighting. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote: that's just a succinct description of how zergs generally lose games. idra did that well. but the issue is balance. how do you go from describing how zergs lose games to saying the game is imbalanced? it's not a discussion fit for the podcast. there are some parallels in academia. in science, you haven't proven something until you've proven something through rigid scientific method that has been peer-reviewed. in math, you haven't proven something until you've done the numbers. even in lit/phil/hist etc, you have to do tons of research and write a comprehensive paper. an academic would never get too invested in a discussion that isn't referring to work that hasn't already been done. if it's all about work that needs to be done, then either do the work or stop talking about it. now, idra has certainly done a lot of great work, and gathered some good evidence, that could be used for a discussion on balance. but it's a drop in the bucket. i guess he feels it's enough to make any future work irrelevant and sean doesnt. ---- the excessively argumentative nature of some of these discussions is really hurting the show and im going to purposely try to avoid it. debates that aren't seen through to the very end are worthless (and we can never do that unless it's an incredibly simple issue). they accomplish nothing. one goal of the show is to extract as much useful knowledge as possible out of our pillars and guests. argument and debate are absolutely horrible formats for doing that. especially when debaters get more concerned with winning a debate than understanding their opponent's position. that's inimical to spreading information. it truly encourages one guy on the show to stop someone else on the show from getting their thoughts out so for example, every single one of idra's insights about zerg could be shared without throwing him in a debate against someone who thinks that we can't presently conclude that the game is imbalanced. and i think they can be shared much more efficiently and pleasantly without debate. any time the pillars and guests on the show talk about anything, that's all we have to do is make good points, provide good insights. and then people listening can decide whatever they want. of course, we should be able to engage with each other and criticize each other's points, but debate is a useless extra dimension, that can only detract from constructive discourse well said, especially the debate part. Non-conclusive debates leads to thread like these 100 pages of QQ/anti QQ | ||
|
Hristiyan
99 Posts
Few hours ago i saw RootSlush vs Deezer ( ZvP ) on a live stream. Deezer had a hallucinated fenix leaving his base in 7:10. He was making a 3 gate exoand on Xel Naga.Caverns and scouted the roach zergling all-in that Slush was preparing. He prepared well for it and denied it. The Terran and Protoss early scouts cannot be denied by a zerg ( u cant deny scan and the hallucination is just ridiculous ) and zerg's scout is VERY easily denied.. If there are no cheeses and/or all-in , then the zerg can be considered as the "reactive race". And as such it really needs the most intel so it can react. And currently it doesnt provide such a way early game. My solution : Pneumatized Carapace shoul be researchable tier 1 ( even if they nerf the speed buff a little ). It will send the zerg FAR behind to get it since its VERY EXPENSIVE, but it will provide a way for the zerg to get an actual intel of whats going on inside of the opponents base by the price of sacking an overlord and loosing 8 supply. | ||
|
Marzuki
United States30 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:34 Maliris wrote: Don't think so somehow buddy anyway pretty sad that being in the debate club is all about ad hominem attacks, interrupting opposition and manipulation. Being in debate club does not a good debater make. Case in point... | ||
|
YourGoodFriend
United States2197 Posts
 | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:39 Hristiyan wrote: The Terran and Protoss early scouts cannot be denied by a zerg ( u cant deny scan and the hallucination is just ridiculous ) and zerg's scout is VERY easily denied.. If you're only building the exact tech you need as Zerg you're doing something terribly, terribly wrong. Just because your opponent has scouted your Roach Warren doesn't mean you have to be producing Roaches. Zerg has the insane ability to produce infinite units with just 1 tech structure, but for some reason Zerg players only ever build tech they need, leaving their opponents with a retardedly easy read on them. When I play Protoss, I would LOVE it if I could throw my opponent's read completely off with just 1 building, but unfortunately Protoss can't go Robo and make Void Rays at the same time. Just make excess tech and your opponent won't be able to read you. Simple as that. | ||
|
Duravi
United States1205 Posts
the excessively argumentative nature of some of these discussions is really hurting the show and im going to purposely try to avoid it. I think some short debates over (like you said) very simple points are fine, the problem is when the arguments drag on forever. However I don't think the responsibility is on you or ANY of the pillars to try to not engage in these, the responsibility is 100% on the moderator, in this case JP, to move things along. JP did a very poor job of moderating last show. GSL spoiler below + Show Spoiler + Also for anyone who has read Nestea's interview from today it read alot like he was basically agreeing with Idra imo, except maybe for the part Idra thinks no solution can be found and Nestea sounded a little more hopeful. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:33 TheTenthDoc wrote: Okay. Give me examples. IdrA should be worlds beyond them and they play the same people. He should be better at prediction then them. IdrA's used to predicting people who make sense. Sheth and Catz are used to predicting people who don't. Also, IdrA is quite a bit beyond them. You can't really take ladder as a source for your view on a players skill. On May 06 2011 04:55 branflakes14 wrote: If you're only building the exact tech you need as Zerg you're doing something terribly, terribly wrong. Just because your opponent has scouted your Roach Warren doesn't mean you have to be producing Roaches. Zerg has the insane ability to produce infinite units with just 1 tech structure, but for some reason Zerg players only ever build tech they need, leaving their opponents with a retardedly easy read on them. When I play Protoss, I would LOVE it if I could throw my opponent's read completely off with just 1 building, but unfortunately Protoss can't go Robo and make Void Rays at the same time. Just make excess tech and your opponent won't be able to read you. Simple as that. It's not about what tech you get, it's about when you get the tech and that's generally what Toss and Terran scout for. | ||
|
Leavzou
France156 Posts
Also, IdrA is quite a bit beyond them. You can't really take ladder as a source for your view on a players skill. 100% true. I'd like to see Sheth or Catz in GSL, haha | ||
|
mYiKane
Canada1772 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote: that's just a succinct description of how zergs generally lose games. idra did that well. but the issue is balance. how do you go from describing how zergs lose games to saying the game is imbalanced? it's not a discussion fit for the podcast. there are some parallels in academia. in science, you haven't proven something until you've proven something through rigid scientific method that has been peer-reviewed. in math, you haven't proven something until you've done the numbers. even in lit/phil/hist etc, you have to do tons of research and write a comprehensive paper. an academic would never get too invested in a discussion that isn't referring to work that hasn't already been done. if it's all about work that needs to be done, then either do the work or stop talking about it. now, idra has certainly done a lot of great work, and gathered some good evidence, that could be used for a discussion on balance. but it's a drop in the bucket. i guess he feels it's enough to make any future work irrelevant and sean doesnt. ---- the excessively argumentative nature of some of these discussions is really hurting the show and im going to purposely try to avoid it. debates that aren't seen through to the very end are worthless (and we can never do that unless it's an incredibly simple issue). they accomplish nothing. one goal of the show is to extract as much useful knowledge as possible out of our pillars and guests. argument and debate are absolutely horrible formats for doing that. especially when debaters get more concerned with winning a debate than understanding their opponent's position. that's inimical to spreading information. it truly encourages one guy on the show to stop someone else on the show from getting their thoughts out so for example, every single one of idra's insights about zerg could be shared without throwing him in a debate against someone who thinks that we can't presently conclude that the game is imbalanced. and i think they can be shared much more efficiently and pleasantly without debate. any time the pillars and guests on the show talk about anything, that's all we have to do is make good points, provide good insights. and then people listening can decide whatever they want. of course, we should be able to engage with each other and criticize each other's points, but debate is a useless extra dimension, that can only detract from constructive discourse When you say that "debate is a useless extra dimension, that can only detract from constructive discourse", I disagree. If I understand correctly, you described a single form of debate wherein one or both parties are concerned only with "winning" the debate. However, it is unfair to generalize and say "debate is a useless extra dimension", since you described only one type of debate. Like you said, the people in SotG should be able to engage with each other and criticize each other, but is this not a form of debate? To debate is to discuss the pros and cons of an issue; to share with each other and criticize; exactly what you described. I think you contradict yourself when you say "debate is a useless extra dimension", yet you go on to say "we should be able to engage with each other and criticize each other's points". Perhaps you only considered a type of debate where there is little to no constructive criticism, the type which obviously retracts from constructive discourse. But I also think that there are debates which contribute to constructive discourse and are a beneficial aspect to SotG and the intellectual conversations within. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 06 2011 05:01 MonsieurGrimm wrote: IdrA's used to predicting people who make sense. Sheth and Catz are used to predicting people who don't. Also, IdrA is quite a bit beyond them. You can't really take ladder as a source for your view on a players skill. I know IdrA is beyond them, that's my point. IdrA's problem is that he apparently loses to people far below his skill (including those on ladder) because he can't predict what they're doing. He says this is a problem in balance, but Catz and Sheth don't (in my experience) have these same problems while laddering and play the exact same race. If more experience on NA with these nonsense players will make IdrA as good at predicting how is there an imbalance? | ||
|
TheMasster
United States34 Posts
I can see why he can get frustrated and call imbalanced it is harder to hold against timings as a zerg, and if they reduced the build time of spines in half it would help a lot. maybe the zerg should build 2 spines always protoss always builds 1 or 2 cannons and that can still be risky if they went for a fast expand. same with terran they have to build a bunker even if they wall in most of the time. GSL spoiler + Show Spoiler + i think zerg is still in a bad spot atm then again nestea showed some great play yesterday anypro made a few mistakes like most protoss do and nestea punished him for them in all the games that nestea won | ||
|
rocky13
Canada70 Posts
On May 06 2011 04:55 Duravi wrote: I think some short debates over (like you said) very simple points are fine, the problem is when the arguments drag on forever. However I don't think the responsibility is on you or ANY of the pillars to try to not engage in these, the responsibility is 100% on the moderator, in this case JP, to move things along. JP did a very poor job of moderating last show. I have to agree. I think that the debates should allow for both sides to present some key points uninterrupted and then each should get a chance to respond but as soon as there is the least bit of repetition the topic should be dropped. It's not entertaining to watch someone try to change someone else's mind. As a concerned viewer I would like to say that the last State of the Game was my least favourite. I didn't like the debate between IdrA and Day9 nor the debate between Tyler and Incontrol. IdrA and Day9 shouldn't of even been arguing in the first place. Day9 basically says "I won't talk about imbalance because it contributes nothing to how anyone plays the game". IdrA then tries to convince Day9 that zerg is underpowered. They weren't even talking about the same thing. They weren't even arguing against each other, they were talking about completely different things IMO. Tyler and Incontrol debate wouldve been fine if it was cut off before the frustration spilled into a personal attack against Tyler. Drama is not always entertaining. I'm not tuning in to watch the starcraft version of Rosie O'Donnell on the view. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
On May 06 2011 05:03 Leavzou wrote: 100% true. I'd like to see Sheth or Catz in GSL, haha You're pretending to deliver something useful, but all you do is highlight a player by saying he is better then others. This discussion is as retarded as the whole thread. I really think the thread should be closed, all it does is bring hatred into the whole starcraft community. Useful comments are not even heard, people who argue carefully and based on facts like liquid tyler can not be heard because of all the aggressive shouting in here. Please close ist. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 06 2011 05:10 TheTenthDoc wrote: I know IdrA is beyond them, that's my point. IdrA's problem is that he apparently loses to people far below his skill (including those on ladder) because he can't predict what they're doing. He says this is a problem in balance, but Catz and Sheth don't (in my experience) have these same problems while laddering and play the exact same race. If more experience on NA with these nonsense players will make IdrA as good at predicting how is there an imbalance? He never said that having unpredictable players is an imbalance. And in my experience, IdrA speculates a lot whereas players like Sheth and Catz make predictions only when they're 90% sure. Sheth and Catz most likely have no clue most of the time, neither does IdrA because Zerg earlygame scouting is pretty terrible. The only difference is that IdrA speculates, sometimes not even based on anything that he's seen but rather on the player he's against. And obviously speculation off of minimal/no information is much more prone to being wrong than predictions off of solid information. | ||
| ||
