|
On May 06 2011 06:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:38 branflakes14 wrote:On May 06 2011 06:33 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:26 Galek wrote:
So the problem may be in crawlers rather than in overlords. Well, one of them needs to be changed. As IdrA said there are two options. One is that overlords are made better and then zerg is able to scout all-ins and harrasses and junk before they leave the base, and prepare accordingly (spine crawlers are fine as-is in this situation, since scouting preemptively gives you a head start on the defense so to speak). The other option is to decrease the build times of the static defense, meaning you can use them reactively. Both options are fine, but one of them needs to happen for zerg earlygame to be less chance-based. I refuse to believe that the difference between 40 second Sunkens and 50 second Spines matters half as much as it's being made out to, especially when most of the time your opponent's army is well within 30 seconds of your base. On maps in BW with small rush distances, you made the creep colonies early, and then when you got worried about the attack you morphed them into sunkens, only then committing the full resources.
^^
|
|
|
On May 06 2011 06:46 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:40 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 04:32 Waking wrote:
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. There is never going to be a build that can block everything. There will be builds that are more safe(ie. can defend against more things), but you will have to give up something in return for them. Idra is correct in all of his points, and I like Day 9, but he took the easy way out of the discussion. Zerg needs to manage the finite resources of minerals/gas/larva very wisely in the early game, and without a reliable way to scout there is no good way to do that. Basically you are left to a guessing game, and while there are ways to limit the number of builds that are possible(based off what little you do see), you can never be entirely sure. The other races can be. So he is correct, there is an imbalance in scouting. Zerg scouting can be denied easily, and the other either can't be denied(scan), or are near impossible to deny(halu.) That is the very definition of imbalance. The fact that Zergs can still win regardless means nothing, and stating that Zergs have won championships means just as little. A win percentage does not prove anything about balance, it can just give you a good place to look. Also, Day9 should understand that there is a difference between equillibrium and balance. They are not exactly interchangeable. But an imbalance in scouting ability =/= imbalance in overall packages that are the races. I can point to any other race and do the same thing with another aspect, such as unit production: Protoss can't produce as many units at the same time as zerg or terran can. Terran can pump tons of reactored marines out at any given point in time (or vikings or hellions), and zerg has the larva mechanic, so they can pump out TONS of shit all at once. Does that mean that Protoss is underpowered? Probably not.
They have the ability to do EXACTLY that if they want. It just requires a ton of structures. Nothing you can do will get an OL past some marines or stalkers, or get zerglings past a wall 
|
On May 06 2011 06:45 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:42 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:39 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:34 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:29 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:23 MrCon wrote:On May 06 2011 06:14 stk01001 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Quote's from Nestea's latest interview after his GSL matches:
"There’s not much a zerg player can prepare mechanically for the match. Rather, you have to design strategies so that you see the flow of your opponent’s race and playstyle and make it difficult for him to proceed. When zergs win, I would say you have to be a bit ‘lucky."
"I think playing zerg right now is really difficult. There isn’t a solution that you can just find. I think it is something that I will have to find by spending time on and studying the matchups. I feel a bit of pressure and responsibilities to do so (for all zerg players)." Coming from arguably the best zerg player in Korea right now and maybe the world.. so really it's BS when people say "no other zergs" feel the way Idra does... in fact most top zergs agree with Idra, specifically korean zergs... not saying there's no solutions out there.. but it's ridiculous when people try to argue that in the current state of the game there is no problems with zerg.... Poor Nestea is like idra who's life's so hard that he just won a 5k tourney, with his GSL title and his royal road to a 2nd title with only weak opposition left. Sorry, I'm sarcastic but hearing that after 100000$ of winnings makes me angry. Perhaps he thinks protoss and terrans have it easy, when MC and MVP are whining about their race too, I tend to take no complain seriously. Nestea had one rough GSL, MKP, MC too, MVP even went to code A. Perhaps his training sessions are hard, but at least result wise, and that goes for idra too, I don't see any reason for complaining. Most zergs would rather play straight up games than leave their results to chance, but apparently straight up games don't win you tournaments. IdrA said he's doing retarded cheeses because that's the only way to win, and now Nestea is somewhat echoing that sentiment. Do you think if that actually were the case, that zergs only wins come from cheeses, that the other races would be fine with that especially since they are winning just as much? Try to look at it from the outside perspective instead. If zerg cheeses had such an extremely high win rate the other races would not be happy with that. Super biased progamers will never be a reliable source of information, too much emotion and bias involved. They don't have an extremely high win rate, they just have a better win rate than standard play. And Super-biased progamers is redundant, it's their job, there's going to be bias no matter where you look. Exactly, balance discussion is dumb. Especially when there is zero proof of what you actually are arguing. Zerg's win rate is fine within top level play. It's unproductive and doesn't lead anywhere. Win rate means next to nothing in this discussion. There are simply too many variables to bring it down to just that one metric.
What else do we have to go off of though?
The way IdrA put it, especially in that one long rant about every unit and every disadvantage, it would seem as though Zerg should have a huge win disparity, but if you look at a significant sample size, everyone is pretty close to even with everyone... So what do we go on?
Do we go based on anecdotes? Or on biased pro-player opinions because those boil down to, "It's pretty balanced" or "My race is the weakest".
How can we say the better player lost, this is unfair, what are we basing the better player on?
There is to much going on to focus on win-rate alone, sure, but there's too much going on to focus on any one thing while ignoring the rest. Sure, Zerg has bad scouting early as a disadvantage but they have other advantages...
|
|
|
On May 06 2011 06:49 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:45 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:42 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:39 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:34 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:29 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:23 MrCon wrote:On May 06 2011 06:14 stk01001 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Quote's from Nestea's latest interview after his GSL matches:
"There’s not much a zerg player can prepare mechanically for the match. Rather, you have to design strategies so that you see the flow of your opponent’s race and playstyle and make it difficult for him to proceed. When zergs win, I would say you have to be a bit ‘lucky."
"I think playing zerg right now is really difficult. There isn’t a solution that you can just find. I think it is something that I will have to find by spending time on and studying the matchups. I feel a bit of pressure and responsibilities to do so (for all zerg players)." Coming from arguably the best zerg player in Korea right now and maybe the world.. so really it's BS when people say "no other zergs" feel the way Idra does... in fact most top zergs agree with Idra, specifically korean zergs... not saying there's no solutions out there.. but it's ridiculous when people try to argue that in the current state of the game there is no problems with zerg.... Poor Nestea is like idra who's life's so hard that he just won a 5k tourney, with his GSL title and his royal road to a 2nd title with only weak opposition left. Sorry, I'm sarcastic but hearing that after 100000$ of winnings makes me angry. Perhaps he thinks protoss and terrans have it easy, when MC and MVP are whining about their race too, I tend to take no complain seriously. Nestea had one rough GSL, MKP, MC too, MVP even went to code A. Perhaps his training sessions are hard, but at least result wise, and that goes for idra too, I don't see any reason for complaining. Most zergs would rather play straight up games than leave their results to chance, but apparently straight up games don't win you tournaments. IdrA said he's doing retarded cheeses because that's the only way to win, and now Nestea is somewhat echoing that sentiment. Do you think if that actually were the case, that zergs only wins come from cheeses, that the other races would be fine with that especially since they are winning just as much? Try to look at it from the outside perspective instead. If zerg cheeses had such an extremely high win rate the other races would not be happy with that. Super biased progamers will never be a reliable source of information, too much emotion and bias involved. They don't have an extremely high win rate, they just have a better win rate than standard play. And Super-biased progamers is redundant, it's their job, there's going to be bias no matter where you look. Exactly, balance discussion is dumb. Especially when there is zero proof of what you actually are arguing. Zerg's win rate is fine within top level play. It's unproductive and doesn't lead anywhere. Win rate means next to nothing in this discussion. There are simply too many variables to bring it down to just that one metric. Exactly what my point was. Balance discussion is dumb because there is too much to take into account and there will always be a bit more things to consider. So all we know right now is that zergs do win stuff, protoss do win stuff, terrans do win stuff. Let the meta game evolve, balance qq goes nowhere.
That is a silly way to think. Just because a problem is large and complicated doesn't mean you shouldn't start breaking it into pieces and trying to figure it out.
|
On May 06 2011 06:49 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:45 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:42 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:39 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:34 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:29 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:23 MrCon wrote:On May 06 2011 06:14 stk01001 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Quote's from Nestea's latest interview after his GSL matches:
"There’s not much a zerg player can prepare mechanically for the match. Rather, you have to design strategies so that you see the flow of your opponent’s race and playstyle and make it difficult for him to proceed. When zergs win, I would say you have to be a bit ‘lucky."
"I think playing zerg right now is really difficult. There isn’t a solution that you can just find. I think it is something that I will have to find by spending time on and studying the matchups. I feel a bit of pressure and responsibilities to do so (for all zerg players)." Coming from arguably the best zerg player in Korea right now and maybe the world.. so really it's BS when people say "no other zergs" feel the way Idra does... in fact most top zergs agree with Idra, specifically korean zergs... not saying there's no solutions out there.. but it's ridiculous when people try to argue that in the current state of the game there is no problems with zerg.... Poor Nestea is like idra who's life's so hard that he just won a 5k tourney, with his GSL title and his royal road to a 2nd title with only weak opposition left. Sorry, I'm sarcastic but hearing that after 100000$ of winnings makes me angry. Perhaps he thinks protoss and terrans have it easy, when MC and MVP are whining about their race too, I tend to take no complain seriously. Nestea had one rough GSL, MKP, MC too, MVP even went to code A. Perhaps his training sessions are hard, but at least result wise, and that goes for idra too, I don't see any reason for complaining. Most zergs would rather play straight up games than leave their results to chance, but apparently straight up games don't win you tournaments. IdrA said he's doing retarded cheeses because that's the only way to win, and now Nestea is somewhat echoing that sentiment. Do you think if that actually were the case, that zergs only wins come from cheeses, that the other races would be fine with that especially since they are winning just as much? Try to look at it from the outside perspective instead. If zerg cheeses had such an extremely high win rate the other races would not be happy with that. Super biased progamers will never be a reliable source of information, too much emotion and bias involved. They don't have an extremely high win rate, they just have a better win rate than standard play. And Super-biased progamers is redundant, it's their job, there's going to be bias no matter where you look. Exactly, balance discussion is dumb. Especially when there is zero proof of what you actually are arguing. Zerg's win rate is fine within top level play. It's unproductive and doesn't lead anywhere. Win rate means next to nothing in this discussion. There are simply too many variables to bring it down to just that one metric. Exactly what my point was. Balance discussion is dumb because there is too much to take into account and there will always be a bit more things to consider. So all we know right now is that zergs do win stuff, protoss do win stuff, terrans do win stuff. Let the meta game evolve, balance qq goes nowhere.
Blizzard is still balancing the game, and I would be surprised if they don't draw from professional's opinions, so while balance discussion among random people on TL might only be useful as fun, I would not say it is useless for professionals to speak about balance.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 06 2011 06:50 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:46 Whitewing wrote:On May 06 2011 06:40 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 04:32 Waking wrote:
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. There is never going to be a build that can block everything. There will be builds that are more safe(ie. can defend against more things), but you will have to give up something in return for them. Idra is correct in all of his points, and I like Day 9, but he took the easy way out of the discussion. Zerg needs to manage the finite resources of minerals/gas/larva very wisely in the early game, and without a reliable way to scout there is no good way to do that. Basically you are left to a guessing game, and while there are ways to limit the number of builds that are possible(based off what little you do see), you can never be entirely sure. The other races can be. So he is correct, there is an imbalance in scouting. Zerg scouting can be denied easily, and the other either can't be denied(scan), or are near impossible to deny(halu.) That is the very definition of imbalance. The fact that Zergs can still win regardless means nothing, and stating that Zergs have won championships means just as little. A win percentage does not prove anything about balance, it can just give you a good place to look. Also, Day9 should understand that there is a difference between equillibrium and balance. They are not exactly interchangeable. But an imbalance in scouting ability =/= imbalance in overall packages that are the races. I can point to any other race and do the same thing with another aspect, such as unit production: Protoss can't produce as many units at the same time as zerg or terran can. Terran can pump tons of reactored marines out at any given point in time (or vikings or hellions), and zerg has the larva mechanic, so they can pump out TONS of shit all at once. Does that mean that Protoss is underpowered? Probably not. They have the ability to do EXACTLY that if they want. It just requires a ton of structures. Nothing you can do will get an OL past some marines or stalkers, or get zerglings past a wall
That argument is nonsensical: Yeah, protoss and terran can do whatever they want in that respect, if they commit the necessary resources to it. Guess what? ZERG CAN TOO! If you want, you can commit resources towards getting that overlord in. Try sending 3 from different angles while you zergling harass the front a little bit, you'll get in. Why don't players do that? Because they feel it's not worth the resource commitment. Any player can do what they want if they have the resources for it, zergs just have to learn to play without being able to guarantee information in that fashion, just like they did in BW.
|
I'd like to sum up my response to IdrA's idea that the Zerg lacks scouting opportunities in the mid to late game with one word.
Changeling.
|
On May 06 2011 06:51 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:50 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:46 Whitewing wrote:On May 06 2011 06:40 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 04:32 Waking wrote:
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. There is never going to be a build that can block everything. There will be builds that are more safe(ie. can defend against more things), but you will have to give up something in return for them. Idra is correct in all of his points, and I like Day 9, but he took the easy way out of the discussion. Zerg needs to manage the finite resources of minerals/gas/larva very wisely in the early game, and without a reliable way to scout there is no good way to do that. Basically you are left to a guessing game, and while there are ways to limit the number of builds that are possible(based off what little you do see), you can never be entirely sure. The other races can be. So he is correct, there is an imbalance in scouting. Zerg scouting can be denied easily, and the other either can't be denied(scan), or are near impossible to deny(halu.) That is the very definition of imbalance. The fact that Zergs can still win regardless means nothing, and stating that Zergs have won championships means just as little. A win percentage does not prove anything about balance, it can just give you a good place to look. Also, Day9 should understand that there is a difference between equillibrium and balance. They are not exactly interchangeable. But an imbalance in scouting ability =/= imbalance in overall packages that are the races. I can point to any other race and do the same thing with another aspect, such as unit production: Protoss can't produce as many units at the same time as zerg or terran can. Terran can pump tons of reactored marines out at any given point in time (or vikings or hellions), and zerg has the larva mechanic, so they can pump out TONS of shit all at once. Does that mean that Protoss is underpowered? Probably not. They have the ability to do EXACTLY that if they want. It just requires a ton of structures. Nothing you can do will get an OL past some marines or stalkers, or get zerglings past a wall Something i want to point out is that you can't get a ling past a wall, but you can get a drone past. :p
Very early game---yes you can drone drill, and you notice that he does that a lot. After a few units are out that is no longer an option(or 1 sentry.)
|
On May 06 2011 06:52 DarkenedLite wrote:
I'd like to sum up my response to IdrA's idea that the Zerg lacks scouting opportunities in the mid to late game with one word.
Changeling.
Except idra's idea is that zerg lacks scouting in the early game. Good try though.
|
On May 06 2011 06:52 DarkenedLite wrote:
I'd like to sum up my response to IdrA's idea that the Zerg lacks scouting opportunities in the mid to late game with one word.
Changeling.
He said they lack it in the early game. Obviously Overseers with speed give excellent scouting in the mid-lategame.
|
On May 06 2011 06:52 DarkenedLite wrote:
I'd like to sum up my response to IdrA's idea that the Zerg lacks scouting opportunities in the mid to late game with one word.
Changeling.
Except that wasn't what he was saying, we're talking about early game.
|
|
|
On May 06 2011 06:52 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:50 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:46 Whitewing wrote:On May 06 2011 06:40 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 04:32 Waking wrote:
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. There is never going to be a build that can block everything. There will be builds that are more safe(ie. can defend against more things), but you will have to give up something in return for them. Idra is correct in all of his points, and I like Day 9, but he took the easy way out of the discussion. Zerg needs to manage the finite resources of minerals/gas/larva very wisely in the early game, and without a reliable way to scout there is no good way to do that. Basically you are left to a guessing game, and while there are ways to limit the number of builds that are possible(based off what little you do see), you can never be entirely sure. The other races can be. So he is correct, there is an imbalance in scouting. Zerg scouting can be denied easily, and the other either can't be denied(scan), or are near impossible to deny(halu.) That is the very definition of imbalance. The fact that Zergs can still win regardless means nothing, and stating that Zergs have won championships means just as little. A win percentage does not prove anything about balance, it can just give you a good place to look. Also, Day9 should understand that there is a difference between equillibrium and balance. They are not exactly interchangeable. But an imbalance in scouting ability =/= imbalance in overall packages that are the races. I can point to any other race and do the same thing with another aspect, such as unit production: Protoss can't produce as many units at the same time as zerg or terran can. Terran can pump tons of reactored marines out at any given point in time (or vikings or hellions), and zerg has the larva mechanic, so they can pump out TONS of shit all at once. Does that mean that Protoss is underpowered? Probably not. They have the ability to do EXACTLY that if they want. It just requires a ton of structures. Nothing you can do will get an OL past some marines or stalkers, or get zerglings past a wall That argument is nonsensical: Yeah, protoss and terran can do whatever they want in that respect, if they commit the necessary resources to it. Guess what? ZERG CAN TOO! If you want, you can commit resources towards getting that overlord in. Try sending 3 from different angles while you zergling harass the front a little bit, you'll get in. Why don't players do that? Because they feel it's not worth the resource commitment. Any player can do what they want if they have the resources for it, zergs just have to learn to play without being able to guarantee information in that fashion, just like they did in BW.
Try going with 3 SLOW OLs and see how far any of them get into the base. It won't happen against anyone good. That is his point, and it is a fair one. I don't want to see games boil down to nearly random chance, and for that to happen something needs to change. I like the idea of having speed as Hatch tech.
|
On May 06 2011 06:56 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:52 Whitewing wrote:On May 06 2011 06:50 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:46 Whitewing wrote:On May 06 2011 06:40 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 04:32 Waking wrote:
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. There is never going to be a build that can block everything. There will be builds that are more safe(ie. can defend against more things), but you will have to give up something in return for them. Idra is correct in all of his points, and I like Day 9, but he took the easy way out of the discussion. Zerg needs to manage the finite resources of minerals/gas/larva very wisely in the early game, and without a reliable way to scout there is no good way to do that. Basically you are left to a guessing game, and while there are ways to limit the number of builds that are possible(based off what little you do see), you can never be entirely sure. The other races can be. So he is correct, there is an imbalance in scouting. Zerg scouting can be denied easily, and the other either can't be denied(scan), or are near impossible to deny(halu.) That is the very definition of imbalance. The fact that Zergs can still win regardless means nothing, and stating that Zergs have won championships means just as little. A win percentage does not prove anything about balance, it can just give you a good place to look. Also, Day9 should understand that there is a difference between equillibrium and balance. They are not exactly interchangeable. But an imbalance in scouting ability =/= imbalance in overall packages that are the races. I can point to any other race and do the same thing with another aspect, such as unit production: Protoss can't produce as many units at the same time as zerg or terran can. Terran can pump tons of reactored marines out at any given point in time (or vikings or hellions), and zerg has the larva mechanic, so they can pump out TONS of shit all at once. Does that mean that Protoss is underpowered? Probably not. They have the ability to do EXACTLY that if they want. It just requires a ton of structures. Nothing you can do will get an OL past some marines or stalkers, or get zerglings past a wall That argument is nonsensical: Yeah, protoss and terran can do whatever they want in that respect, if they commit the necessary resources to it. Guess what? ZERG CAN TOO! If you want, you can commit resources towards getting that overlord in. Try sending 3 from different angles while you zergling harass the front a little bit, you'll get in. Why don't players do that? Because they feel it's not worth the resource commitment. Any player can do what they want if they have the resources for it, zergs just have to learn to play without being able to guarantee information in that fashion, just like they did in BW. Try going with 3 SLOW OLs and see how far any of them get into the base. It won't happen against anyone good. That is his point, and it is a fair one. I don't want to see games boil down to nearly random chance, and for that to happen something needs to change. I like the idea of having speed as Hatch tech.
Try making a royal fuck-ton of buildings just so you can be like, "Yeah, I'm Zerg too" and remax instantly, you'll get shit on by anyone good. What's that? 50 Gates... Yeah... nice resources for unit.
This argument makes no sense.
|
On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:52 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:49 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:45 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:42 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:39 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:34 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:29 MonsieurGrimm wrote:On May 06 2011 06:23 MrCon wrote:On May 06 2011 06:14 stk01001 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Quote's from Nestea's latest interview after his GSL matches:
"There’s not much a zerg player can prepare mechanically for the match. Rather, you have to design strategies so that you see the flow of your opponent’s race and playstyle and make it difficult for him to proceed. When zergs win, I would say you have to be a bit ‘lucky."
"I think playing zerg right now is really difficult. There isn’t a solution that you can just find. I think it is something that I will have to find by spending time on and studying the matchups. I feel a bit of pressure and responsibilities to do so (for all zerg players)." Coming from arguably the best zerg player in Korea right now and maybe the world.. so really it's BS when people say "no other zergs" feel the way Idra does... in fact most top zergs agree with Idra, specifically korean zergs... not saying there's no solutions out there.. but it's ridiculous when people try to argue that in the current state of the game there is no problems with zerg.... Poor Nestea is like idra who's life's so hard that he just won a 5k tourney, with his GSL title and his royal road to a 2nd title with only weak opposition left. Sorry, I'm sarcastic but hearing that after 100000$ of winnings makes me angry. Perhaps he thinks protoss and terrans have it easy, when MC and MVP are whining about their race too, I tend to take no complain seriously. Nestea had one rough GSL, MKP, MC too, MVP even went to code A. Perhaps his training sessions are hard, but at least result wise, and that goes for idra too, I don't see any reason for complaining. Most zergs would rather play straight up games than leave their results to chance, but apparently straight up games don't win you tournaments. IdrA said he's doing retarded cheeses because that's the only way to win, and now Nestea is somewhat echoing that sentiment. Do you think if that actually were the case, that zergs only wins come from cheeses, that the other races would be fine with that especially since they are winning just as much? Try to look at it from the outside perspective instead. If zerg cheeses had such an extremely high win rate the other races would not be happy with that. Super biased progamers will never be a reliable source of information, too much emotion and bias involved. They don't have an extremely high win rate, they just have a better win rate than standard play. And Super-biased progamers is redundant, it's their job, there's going to be bias no matter where you look. Exactly, balance discussion is dumb. Especially when there is zero proof of what you actually are arguing. Zerg's win rate is fine within top level play. It's unproductive and doesn't lead anywhere. Win rate means next to nothing in this discussion. There are simply too many variables to bring it down to just that one metric. Exactly what my point was. Balance discussion is dumb because there is too much to take into account and there will always be a bit more things to consider. So all we know right now is that zergs do win stuff, protoss do win stuff, terrans do win stuff. Let the meta game evolve, balance qq goes nowhere. That is a silly way to think. Just because a problem is large and complicated doesn't mean you shouldn't start breaking it into pieces and trying to figure it out. Ok, then I have a question for you. Where do you want to get with the discussion, what do you want to conclude, what information should be used when scientifically breaking down where things are wrong? If we actually would want to prove something is imbalanced we would have to establish how we would go about doing it. The only actual unbiased team that has the data, tools and knowlege (afaik) is blizzard, at blizzcon they discussed their tools and how they do this, We are all (most of us at least) biased, our experiences, data, knowlege aren't good, qualitative and quantitative enough.
The same place Idra is hoping to get. He wants to get people to think about solutions to the problem that won't break other aspects of the game. You don't do that by just sitting back and waiting for someone else to find a solution that may or may not exist.
|
I wonder what Idra will have to say if Nestea wins this GSL..
|
|
|
On May 06 2011 06:31 epik640x wrote:
Jeff
Nice subtle troll.
Anyway, I think most people are forgetting that Zerg is not asking for Protoss tech based observer nor a Terran based scan, but something that provides them enough time to see whether there is an all-in coming their way as Spine Crawlers are not okay as an immediate defence. Zerg do not use build orders to the extend of Terran and Protoss so something that assists with the reactionary race should be implemented.
In the LosirA vs SC game, if LosirA had the scouting capabilities IdrA was requesting, or the snap defence, then he wouldn't be thrown so far back economically for not having the clairvoyance that Zergs seem to need to be able to compete at the professional level.
While Day[9] is right for the most part that professional gaming should wait and see how the scene grows before people start screaming, "imba imba", I think he failed to notice the glaring flaw that Zerg currently has which IdrA was talking about which in two, three or ten years will still have the problem, so I supported IdrA through that.
For the Tyler/iNcontroL debate. Well I think Tyler is right that we like to see the true personalities of people, but this is curbed/changed by the authorities on Team Liquid or if they're representing something, I think it is naive of Tyler to think otherwise and argue about it so vehemently.
For Tasteless... he's so handsome.
For Machine... he's so handsome
For uNcontrolLable... she's so sexy
For JP... well... not everyone can be attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
