|
On May 06 2011 06:48 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:39 MrCon 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. But terrans and protosses are doing retarded cheeses too. That's an important part of the game to stabilize the metagame, or keep your opponent guessing if you prefer. GSL spoiler nestea vs anypro game 1 below : Zerg has a culture of seeing aggressive play as bad play (influenced a lot by idra). This morning, when nestea rolled anypro in game 1 with 4 bases vs 2 (or 1.5), zergs players were downplaying his win because "he allined". It's like that, aggressive zerg play has a bad reputation to zerg players themselves. So when the proper counter to a strategy is just "go fucking kill him", they don't want to accept it, because they think it's bad play (or bad game design). And that whole mindset is stopping zergs to evolve (which is less and less true, as idra and nestea are bitching about it but still using it and winning with it, so I hope that zerg players will follow their actions and not their paroles) So you would rather play rock paper scissors because it's balanced, even though it takes no skill and is entirely chance-based? It's shitty game design to have the players win by blind countering each other instead of outplaying each other. Sure, allin plays have their place - they're there to keep players honest, but when allin becomes the standard is when the game is no longer worth playing imo.
I don't get where you see any blind counter in this. (perhaps in TvZ ? but no, even in TvZ I don't see what that means in practice). Unless you think nestea blind countered something ? He reacted. Losira same. Sheth yesterday same. Vibe yesterday same.
Allins are only standard until the other race can defend it a good % of the time.
And that mean that when allin are not effective anymore, that's because the other race builds have changed (in general for something less greedy).
I don't like examples but we can assume the timeline of ZvP evolution would be this :
- protoss stomping zergs with deathball
- zergs starts to be aggressive early, stomping toss (current situation in GSL and NASL)
- toss has to play defensively, so gets deathball later and can't take a 3rd as easily as before (expected development) (we're not yet here)
- a new equilibrium is found, where both races can play a macro game, both races knowing that if they cut corners they take the risk to die early
- .....(new builds are found, well, the matchup still evolve)
Currently zergs refuse to accept the 2nd part is necessary to attain their ultimate goal : 100% of mAcRo GaMeS.
|
How about maps with smaller mains?
|
On May 06 2011 06:58 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:56 FighterHayabusa wrote: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.
Zerg's ability to make units is dependent upon number of hatches, queens, and then time elapsed. It isn't anywhere near as simple as you are trying to make it seem, but even if it were, you have ranged splash damage units so that helps a lot.
I'm not going to go into balance as far as units are concerned though, because that is just a huge amount of data to try and sort through. I'm just speaking towards scouting. Zerg needs to be able to scout early game to keep it from being a guessing game.
|
On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Yes, but from a balance perspective that's not the issue.
From that perspective, you first have to identify that assumption A, B and C are true and can't be overcome by some other advantage the race has as the game progresses overall. If we follow the same logic IdrA did, which was basically "A, B, C, Therefor D" without actually focussing on whether any of these are true, we won't get anywhere... Just like right now, we aren't getting anywhere.
In terms of figuring out new strategies, it's fine... From a balance perspective it doesn't work because if it did, we'd be assuming every racial disadvantage as a balance issue when that's just variation in the game.
|
On May 06 2011 06:59 Voltaire wrote:
I wonder what Idra will have to say if Nestea wins this GSL..
The same thing he has been saying. You notice his stance still hasn't changed and he has been winning a lot lately. If anything I think that proves he isn't just whining.
|
On May 06 2011 07:00 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course, but without a system and algorithms and ways to actually prove that something is imbalanced there is always going to be conflict and clash of opinions. Actually proving something is the key, and that key is what we can't create with what we are working with.
You don't need an algorithm to prove that Zerg can't scout early game lol. That is a fact. What you seem to want to debate is whether or not that actually matters.
|
On May 06 2011 07:02 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:58 Mordiford wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 FighterHayabusa wrote: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. Zerg's ability to make units is dependent upon number of hatches, queens, and then time elapsed. It isn't anywhere near as simple as you are trying to make it seem, but even if it were, you have ranged splash damage units so that helps a lot. I'm not going to go into balance as far as units are concerned though, because that is just a huge amount of data to try and sort through. I'm just speaking towards scouting. Zerg needs to be able to scout early game to keep it from being a guessing game.
That's the point, you can't focus on early game scouting alone, there's a sense of balance overall, if this was THAT huge of an issue, there would be a visible disparity in pro win rates, otherwise every Zerg should drop Starcraft and go to a fucking Casino considering how they've been able to keep up.
If you focus on certain areas without looking at the whole, you run into problems. Early game it can be hard for Zerg to identify strategies and the solution is possibly to play defensively and take a bit of a setback, late game it's impossible for Terran to keep up with tech switches and certain 200/200 compositions are near unbeatable. It's balanced around the whole.
|
On May 06 2011 07:04 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:59 Voltaire wrote:
I wonder what Idra will have to say if Nestea wins this GSL.. The same thing he has been saying. You notice his stance still hasn't changed and he has been winning a lot lately. If anything I think that proves he isn't just whining.
Nestea winning GSL again would prove Idra right that Zerg is underpowered?
|
|
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 06 2011 07:05 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 07:00 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course, but without a system and algorithms and ways to actually prove that something is imbalanced there is always going to be conflict and clash of opinions. Actually proving something is the key, and that key is what we can't create with what we are working with. You don't need an algorithm to prove that Zerg can't scout early game lol. That is a fact. What you seem to want to debate is whether or not that actually matters.
You're missing the obvious, time and time again. First, you don't need to see the enemy building itself to have a good idea of what might be coming, you can make inferences based off what you can see. Secondly, a lack of scouting balance =/= lack of general balance overall.
|
On May 06 2011 07:03 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but from a balance perspective that's not the issue. From that perspective, you first have to identify that assumption A, B and C are true and can't be overcome by some other advantage the race has as the game progresses overall. If we follow the same logic IdrA did, which was basically "A, B, C, Therefor D" without actually focussing on whether any of these are true, we won't get anywhere... Just like right now, we aren't getting anywhere. In terms of figuring out new strategies, it's fine... From a balance perspective it doesn't work because if it did, we'd be assuming every racial disadvantage as a balance issue when that's just variation in the game.
I can see where you are going with this line of thinking, and I somewhat agree; however, those don't break the game. Lack of early scouting for Zerg makes it a guessing game, and I wouldn't just call that a disadvantage inherent in the race. It is something that is clearly broken and needs to be fixed because otherwise we are just left to playing odds. I'd rather see games decided on skill than luck.
|
On May 06 2011 07:08 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 07:05 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 07:00 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course, but without a system and algorithms and ways to actually prove that something is imbalanced there is always going to be conflict and clash of opinions. Actually proving something is the key, and that key is what we can't create with what we are working with. You don't need an algorithm to prove that Zerg can't scout early game lol. That is a fact. What you seem to want to debate is whether or not that actually matters. I didn't say you need an algorithm to prove zerg can't scout, I'm not here to discuss balance anymore really, I'm discussing discussing balance. I'm saying there is too much data needed to prove imbalance, we don't have the data, tools or knowlege to get anywhere.
And the primary tool we do have, win-rates on a large scale, suggests that each race is winning a reasonably even amount... Particularly in the large sample size of the foreign scene.
|
On May 06 2011 06:59 Voltaire wrote:
I wonder what Idra will have to say if Nestea wins this GSL..
Nestea just said that if "zerg wins, it's luck" and I imagine Idra shares that opinion
|
On May 06 2011 07:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
How about maps with smaller mains?
Haha, i like that idea. Some Plateaus are just freaking huge.
On the other hand, people would whine about sieged up tanks on the lowground all day long then.
|
On May 06 2011 07:12 AntiGrav1ty wrote:Haha, i like that idea. Some Plateaus are just freaking huge. On the other hand, people would whine about sieged up tanks on the lowground all day long then.
There are ways to set it up so tanks cant siege there. Water for instance.
On May 06 2011 07:09 FighterHayabusa wrote:
Lack of early scouting for Zerg makes it a guessing game, and I wouldn't just call that a disadvantage inherent in the race. It is something that is clearly broken and needs to be fixed because otherwise we are just left to playing odds.
If I gave you a map where mains were a third their current size, could zerg scout it?
Disclaimer: I am not claiming Idra's complaint is valid. I am merely trying to point out that "balance" debates should first look to maps before claiming the game is broken and Blizzard needs to fix it.
|
On May 06 2011 07:09 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 07:03 Mordiford wrote:On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but from a balance perspective that's not the issue. From that perspective, you first have to identify that assumption A, B and C are true and can't be overcome by some other advantage the race has as the game progresses overall. If we follow the same logic IdrA did, which was basically "A, B, C, Therefor D" without actually focussing on whether any of these are true, we won't get anywhere... Just like right now, we aren't getting anywhere. In terms of figuring out new strategies, it's fine... From a balance perspective it doesn't work because if it did, we'd be assuming every racial disadvantage as a balance issue when that's just variation in the game. I can see where you are going with this line of thinking, and I somewhat agree; however, those don't break the game. Lack of early scouting for Zerg makes it a guessing game, and I wouldn't just call that a disadvantage inherent in the race. It is something that is clearly broken and needs to be fixed because otherwise we are just left to playing odds. I'd rather see games decided on skill than luck.
Ok, for the xth time, I have to ask for at least one example of that.
|
On May 06 2011 07:09 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 07:05 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 07:00 zeru wrote:On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course, but without a system and algorithms and ways to actually prove that something is imbalanced there is always going to be conflict and clash of opinions. Actually proving something is the key, and that key is what we can't create with what we are working with. You don't need an algorithm to prove that Zerg can't scout early game lol. That is a fact. What you seem to want to debate is whether or not that actually matters. You're missing the obvious, time and time again. First, you don't need to see the enemy building itself to have a good idea of what might be coming, you can make inferences based off what you can see. Secondly, a lack of scouting balance =/= lack of general balance overall.
As stated earlier, Yes you can limit the number of builds they are capable of producing based of what you can see, but you cannot know exactly what they are doing. Couple this with Zerg being able to die to any number of these and you come to the conclusion that Idra has. He is left guessing, and hoping that he can play out what he chose blindly.
If you want to argue the point that no scouting is just a disadvantage Zergs should have to live with then I'd like to see your reasoning behind that.
|
On May 06 2011 07:13 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 07:09 FighterHayabusa wrote:
Lack of early scouting for Zerg makes it a guessing game, and I wouldn't just call that a disadvantage inherent in the race. It is something that is clearly broken and needs to be fixed because otherwise we are just left to playing odds. If I gave you a map where mains were a third there current size, could zerg scout it?
I like this idea too, but I'm not sure what else would change as a result. Honestly, the best idea I've seen is moving OL speed to hatch tech. I don't think that would significantly change anything other than allowing Zerg to scout, and there would still be a large opportunity cost associated with getting it.
|
On May 06 2011 07:09 FighterHayabusa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 07:03 Mordiford wrote:On May 06 2011 06:58 FighterHayabusa wrote:On May 06 2011 06:56 zeru wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yes, but from a balance perspective that's not the issue. From that perspective, you first have to identify that assumption A, B and C are true and can't be overcome by some other advantage the race has as the game progresses overall. If we follow the same logic IdrA did, which was basically "A, B, C, Therefor D" without actually focussing on whether any of these are true, we won't get anywhere... Just like right now, we aren't getting anywhere. In terms of figuring out new strategies, it's fine... From a balance perspective it doesn't work because if it did, we'd be assuming every racial disadvantage as a balance issue when that's just variation in the game. I can see where you are going with this line of thinking, and I somewhat agree; however, those don't break the game. Lack of early scouting for Zerg makes it a guessing game, and I wouldn't just call that a disadvantage inherent in the race. It is something that is clearly broken and needs to be fixed because otherwise we are just left to playing odds. I'd rather see games decided on skill than luck.
I wouldn't agree there though, because it's not something that is clearly broken, if there were a guessing game involved in this sense, considering the openings available, you'd have something like a 20% chance of getting it right. Even with some wiggle room in the scene, the win rate would be substantially lower with something inherently broken.
I don't think it's a situation where Zerg's success is decided by luck over skill, at all... They'd all have to be retardedly lucky to have the win-rate they currently have.
|
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...
I feel the same way. He is so annoying, took him so long to quit typing while other people are trying to talk
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
