|
On May 06 2011 04:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
----
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
I like this guy. <3
|
|
|
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.'
But that's just the point. We're nowhere CLOSE to having Zerg eliminated from the metagame. If the metagame settles in such a way that Zerg is simply screwed, then nobody competitive will play Zerg, Idra included. Until we actually do hit equilibrium, it's useless to discuss balance.
|
On May 06 2011 05:18 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 05:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 05:01 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 04:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:31 Leavzou wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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? 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.
Prediction is based off of scouting; it's making a conclusion by inference from all your knowledge, not just the knowledge you've directly observed. The problem with scouting is inherently a problem with unpredictability. If players weren't unpredictable you'd never need to scout anyway.
Why do Catz and Sheth only seem to lose when they have poor execution? I have rarely (never that rises to mind) seen them go "well, I didn't scout that and so I lost." The exception is when the opponent is doing some wonky build that they've never seen before and scouting wouldn't have helped anyway (and those builds should be rewarded, by the way, if we want to see a developing scene). They both lay responsibility with their decision making and execution of their strategy. And Sheth and Catz frequently speculate off of who they're playing, even just in ladder games.
Edit: The exception was a weird 2rax proxy in a tournament on Xel Naga Caverns that made even Sheth rage a little bit, but I've never seen that repeated anywhere.
|
I very much agree with tylers post, i think that kind of discussion does not benefit the show in any way, debates dont belong in sotg in my opinion.
|
On May 06 2011 04:03 iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +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
Confirmed. InControl wins Team Liquid.
+ Show Spoiler +this is why i love inControl, trollin the trolls liek a boss
|
On May 06 2011 05:29 Techno wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 04:03 iNcontroL wrote: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 Confirmed. InControl wins Team Liquid. + Show Spoiler +this is why i love inControl, trollin the trolls liek a boss
Debating is a useful skill toi have.
Way of the world, unfortunately. Unless you plan on working mostly alone or within a small clique of people, you have to get used to it. People that think fastest and speak loudest win.
|
On May 06 2011 04:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 03:45 MorroW wrote:
what idra said about scouting and responding makes perfect sense to me 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 holy shit, someone with both intelligence and eloquence on the TL boards, and they happen to be a progamer. Well done, sir.
|
It's kind of a both ways situation and isn't fair to blame either side really. Yes Greg always frames things in the topic of balance, but when he brings up issues on the Zerg front and people are immediately stand-offish or don't wish to engage in the discussion then it naturally becomes more argumentative. Greg never put forth really aggressive Zerg balance arguments as much as he became aggressive and argumentative of the fact that other members (in this case Day9) wouldn't engage in discussions about it and just kind of hand waved the problem away. It's doubly worse when people on the show tout out the same tired arguments that tend to only be tangential to the directed concerns that Greg voices. I think at the very least if you guys don't want to debate it then just say so flatly during the show, have JP cut off the discussion, and don't make the side jabs and comments that spark a debate that isn't wanted. When Greg says something about balance and someone else says something like, "yeah Zerg don't do anything but win championships" you're already starting a debate with a weak argument, but then hand waving away his counter because you don't want to start a debate about balance. So it comes off as the sort of thing where you get to fend away his opinions and arguments, but he's not allowed to present his evidence or stance.
And that's really how I see the really back and forth argument as being started. Greg brings up something he feels is a really important issue to Zerg players (and himself) and is met by small rebuttals followed immediately by a, "I don't want to debate this attitude." I'm perfectly fine/happy with SotG not debating balance, but even as a listener its frustrating to listen to when the debate is 1/2 started by all of one sides points are just countered by the other side saying they don't want to talk about it and ignoring the other side's points then throwing in a jab or comment that acts as evidence for their point.
Basically don't 1/2 ass it. If you don't want to talk about balance then just say so and don't make comments about it. By 1/2 making comments and 1/2 saying you don't want to talk about balance you just create argument and hostility.
I mean why can't someone on the show (JP?) say, "hey lets talk about Zerg early scouting, but not in the context of balance. Greg what kinds of mix-ups are difficult to tell apart in ZvP?" if they are willing to debate the points, but not in the way that Greg has brought them up.
|
I love this show. Think they do an awesome job everytime. I like people getting in to serious discussion til' a certain degree. This was a bit out of line tho but I can really relate to iNcontroL, its really frustrating to have an discussion with another guy that makes no sense at all at times and escpecially when the team he's representing is in the spotlight of it all.
iNcontroL is the man, such a humble and stand up guy. And funny as hell.
keep up the good work Geoff!
(I heard you wasnt able to make it to Sweden for dreamhack, that sucks. But hopefully we'll see you in Sweden next time!)
Too sad that Tasteless cant get on the show more often, would've been so awesome having him there every show!
SotG ftw!
|
Idra currently talking about how a Protoss blocking his fast expansion with a Pylon is a sign that the Protoss knows he can't compete with Idra and has to compensate. The view inside his colon must be amazing, he's obsessed with it. I honestly have no idea how or why people take him seriously.
|
Hm so for me it looks like spine crawlers are built faster than sunken colonies were in broodwar (counted it in SC2 time, I might be wrong about this). I don't really recall anything about zergs in BW having better scouting than zergs in SC2, was there any big imbalance crying about scouting in BW? Still you could do as T/P some crazy stuff when it wasnt scouted in that game which is considered rather as a balanced one. I'm honestly trying to look at things objectively but after hearing Idra about him being good becouse he is playing a lot for a long time so he is supposed to win, I don't know really what to think. With this attitude I get this in way like "Since I train hard enough and everyone is obviously worse than me, I should win 100% or its something wrong with the game" but thats only how I feel about this kind of attitude.
Don't bash me please and I would greatly appreciate if someone would refer to my BW lines couse I might be totally wrong and getting additional knowledge is always useful.
|
On May 06 2011 04:03 iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually I did have a lot of respect for you and yes, there is still respect remaining.
Still, just in case you missed my other post:
Why not just respond in a calm matter and say that it was the right thing to do for the admin and for eg instead of trying to ridicule everything he says with sarcasm and out of place analogies? I do not like that "style" of debating and it is just bad.
You clearly had a different opinion and were not gonna change each others opinion. Just state your arguments and line of thought, let Tyler state his concers and then be done with it.
|
On May 06 2011 05:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 05:18 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 05:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 05:01 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 04:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 06 2011 04:31 Leavzou wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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? 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. Prediction is based off of scouting; it's making a conclusion by inference from all your knowledge, not just the knowledge you've directly observed. The problem with scouting is inherently a problem with unpredictability. If players weren't unpredictable you'd never need to scout anyway. Why do Catz and Sheth only seem to lose when they have poor execution? I have rarely (never that rises to mind) seen them go "well, I didn't scout that and so I lost." The exception is when the opponent is doing some wonky build that they've never seen before and scouting wouldn't have helped anyway (and those builds should be rewarded, by the way, if we want to see a developing scene). They both lay responsibility with their decision making and execution of their strategy. And Sheth and Catz frequently speculate off of who they're playing, even just in ladder games. Edit: The exception was a weird 2rax proxy in a tournament on Xel Naga Caverns that made even Sheth rage a little bit, but I've never seen that repeated anywhere.
I don't know what you're trying to say, are you trying to say that IdrA doesn't scout enough? Because that's completely false. Are you saying that Sheth and Catz have better reactions? They can't make spine crawlers build any faster and they can't turn their Drone eggs into Zergling eggs...
If Sheth and Catz and IdrA are all speculating on what a player will do based off no ingame knowledge, then that has nothing to do with skill nor the balance of the game. From my experience, Sheth and Catz don't have better predictions based off of ingame knowledge than IdrA, they just make fewer predictions because they want to be more sure before saying anything. But of course, we're both speaking from our personal experiences so who knows.
|
On May 06 2011 05:48 Galek wrote:
Hm so for me it looks like spine crawlers are built faster than sunken colonies were in broodwar (counted it in SC2 time, I might be wrong about this). I don't really recall anything about zergs in BW having better scouting than zergs in SC2, was there any big imbalance crying about scouting in BW? Still you could do as T/P some crazy stuff when it wasnt scouted in that game which is considered rather as a balanced one. I'm honestly trying to look at things objectively but after hearing Idra about him being good becouse he is playing a lot for a long time so he is supposed to win, I don't know really what to think. With this attitude I get this in way like "Since I train hard enough and everyone is obviously worse than me, I should win 100% or its something wrong with the game" but thats only how I feel about this kind of attitude.
Don't bash me please and I would greatly appreciate if someone would refer to my BW lines couse I might be totally wrong and getting additional knowledge is always useful.
It takes 40 seconds to build a Sunken Colony from scratch, compared to the 50 of Spine Crawlers. It does however cost 25% more minerals to build a Sunken Colony. Spine Crawlers have the added bonus of being able to reposition themselves too.
|
On May 06 2011 05:48 Galek wrote:
Hm so for me it looks like spine crawlers are built faster than sunken colonies were in broodwar (counted it in SC2 time, I might be wrong about this). I don't really recall anything about zergs in BW having better scouting than zergs in SC2, was there any big imbalance crying about scouting in BW? Still you could do as T/P some crazy stuff when it wasnt scouted in that game which is considered rather as a balanced one. I'm honestly trying to look at things objectively but after hearing Idra about him being good becouse he is playing a lot for a long time so he is supposed to win, I don't know really what to think. With this attitude I get this in way like "Since I train hard enough and everyone is obviously worse than me, I should win 100% or its something wrong with the game" but thats only how I feel about this kind of attitude.
Don't bash me please and I would greatly appreciate if someone would refer to my BW lines couse I might be totally wrong and getting additional knowledge is always useful.
Thing is that Sunkens were a two part process, if you did the first part (creep colonies) proactively then you could do the second part reactively. You can't do that with spines, it has to be entirely proactive (bad unless you have conclusive scouting information) or reactive (not really possible because of the build time)
|
On May 06 2011 05:42 Logo wrote:
When Greg says something about balance and someone else says something like, "yeah Zerg don't do anything but win championships" you're already starting a debate with a weak argument, but then hand waving away his counter because you don't want to start a debate about balance. So it comes off as the sort of thing where you get to fend away his opinions and arguments, but he's not allowed to present his evidence or stance.
I think it really comes down to that if it's not your race that's struggling, then why bother to listen to the whining? You'll notice that the only other Zerg player on the panel (Machine) got abused for *gasp* agreeing that there were problems with the race. The Protoss player isn't going to care, because he can still warpgate his way to the top of tournaments.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 06 2011 05:52 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 05:48 Galek wrote:
Hm so for me it looks like spine crawlers are built faster than sunken colonies were in broodwar (counted it in SC2 time, I might be wrong about this). I don't really recall anything about zergs in BW having better scouting than zergs in SC2, was there any big imbalance crying about scouting in BW? Still you could do as T/P some crazy stuff when it wasnt scouted in that game which is considered rather as a balanced one. I'm honestly trying to look at things objectively but after hearing Idra about him being good becouse he is playing a lot for a long time so he is supposed to win, I don't know really what to think. With this attitude I get this in way like "Since I train hard enough and everyone is obviously worse than me, I should win 100% or its something wrong with the game" but thats only how I feel about this kind of attitude.
Don't bash me please and I would greatly appreciate if someone would refer to my BW lines couse I might be totally wrong and getting additional knowledge is always useful. It takes 40 seconds to build a Sunken Colony from scratch, compared to the 50 of Spine Crawlers. It does however cost 25% more minerals to build a Sunken Colony. Spine Crawlers have the added bonus of being able to reposition themselves too.
Plus spine crawlers have higher DPS than sunkens.
|
Sunken were better tho, the fact that spine attack are slow allow fast units, like hellions, to enter range and starts the spine attack animation, but quickly go out of range so the attack doesn't connect. In broodwar it hit 100%
|
lol @ bringing up being "somebody" on a forum. Post count matters, man.
As far as Greg vs Sean:
Day 9 has the luxury to sit back and philosophize about the metagame and to say things like, "hmm, perhaps there are strategies and things that are coming soon... how soon? Who knows. Maybe a week, maybe 3 years.
IdrA doesn't have the luxury to just relax and have such abstract discussions, he's on the frontline right now playing for thousands of dollars and balance matters to him right now.
So I think both have their point but Greg is a player we should have enough respect for to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says something is possibly unbalanced rather than being someone who just cries about his own race.
I know Greg has said things about Zerg before as well but at this point it doesn't seem like anything was severely over exaggerating or anything.
It truly does seem like Zerg is still the toughest to play and the fact that it attracts--generally--the most skilled players from BW makes it even tougher to gauge the true imbalance.
And Tyler got a little too emotionally involved in the discussion. Rather than come back and say that EG didn't accommodate, he should've just explained Liquid's reasons for declining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
