|
On May 08 2011 08:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +Also you are assuming Idra would lose against people like scfou which is dubious. Nestea hasn't faced anybody good yet. Any time a Zerg wins, this is how every Zerg reacts, "it was luck" or "his opponents all sucked". Even when Nestea beat fucking MKP (back when he was Foxer), you had people insisting MKP was a gimmicky one-dimensional player and this meant nothing and Nestea still hadn't beaten anybody "good".
What would happen, if MC lost to say oGsTOP.
5 people say that terran is overpowered, or it was luck, or MC played awfully.
What happens? They GET IGNORED.
Why is it so hard for you people to ignore the small minority of people who post like you just described?
|
On May 08 2011 08:09 Thrill wrote:
I really want to see Idra back on the next show and i want to hear JP ask him about not practicing and rather "thinking" about the game yet Nestea (who i imagine trains quite a bit) manages to figure out innovative ways of tackling difficult situations in matchups and maps Idra would say are imbalanced.
Given the recent events, that would probably be a very bad idea. It's probably best to give it another week to let things cool off.
|
On May 08 2011 08:29 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 08:15 Alsn wrote:
Idra wants a way to play zerg without taking risks, something he believes is impossible right now. And so far, no one has been able to come up with anything but conjecture to prove him wrong. If it's even possible to prove such a thing. Absolutely the case. My question is: why is it bad that he might have to take risks? Is poker a badly designed game because top players lose a hand now and then? IdrA wins 80% of his ladder games and wins tournaments (which, by the way, are designed so that moving on to another round depends on more than the outcome of a single game.) He appears to feel that if his play's strong enough he should be able to win 100% of his games. Unfortunately, not all games are like that, particularly those that rely on hiding information from the players, as Starcraft does. That doesn't make it bad game design. Edit: I play zerg, I cheer for zerg, and I think IdrA's a great player. However, he's no game designer, and he seems to let his self-interest color his opinions more than many of his peers.
In poker you play hundreds of hands... Unless you want every tournament to be a best of xxx the argument doesn't follow.
I feel sc2 is too volatile. Sure you can say in the long run it evens out, but I think that's poor game design.
Okay, here's an example. A chess grandmaster can play 50 simultaneous games of chess against very, very, very good players and win them all.
Idra, who no one can deny is an exceptional starcraft player, has an 80% winrate... I mean, I think that's absurdly low for a professional playing mostly amateurs. And I realize he plays other pros, but he also plays people like Pride, Maker, LiquidWater... people who just use ridiculous all-ins that are not even optimized. How on earth do these people have mmr's that compare with him?
I think making overlord speed hatch tech would help this early game volatility. Hallucinate, a hatch tech OL speed, and scan are all good early game scouting methods.
Actually, my favorite idea so far is to have an overlord overdrive ability that speeds overlords up for 5 seconds at which point they die. I think that would be interesting  .
|
On May 08 2011 08:48 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 08:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:Also you are assuming Idra would lose against people like scfou which is dubious. Nestea hasn't faced anybody good yet. Any time a Zerg wins, this is how every Zerg reacts, "it was luck" or "his opponents all sucked". Even when Nestea beat fucking MKP (back when he was Foxer), you had people insisting MKP was a gimmicky one-dimensional player and this meant nothing and Nestea still hadn't beaten anybody "good". What would happen, if MC lost to say oGsTOP. 5 people say that terran is overpowered, or it was luck, or MC played awfully. What happens? They GET IGNORED. Why is it so hard for you people to ignore the small minority of people who post like you just described?
Because Idra uses the same argument. First it was Rainbow giving the GSL away to Fruitdealer. Then it was Nestea getting lucky AND not fighting any good players in GSL2.
It's not a small minority that uses these kinds of arguments, they are brought up every time someone mentions successful zergs. It's luck or bad opponents.
|
On May 08 2011 08:57 Mithrandir wrote:Actually, my favorite idea so far is to have an overlord overdrive ability that speeds overlords up for 5 seconds at which point they die. I think that would be interesting .
I also thought of this, but I dunno... and I don't think Blizz is going to add anything to the game, unless it's in an expansion. They're probably just gonna tweak stats, in which case I'd suggest removing the "Armoured" attribute (to make stalkers not do extra damage) and giving them a point of armour (for marines/sentries). But of course, Blizzard doesn't read these forums 
|
On May 08 2011 08:57 Mithrandir wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 08:29 Lysenko wrote:On May 08 2011 08:15 Alsn wrote:
Idra wants a way to play zerg without taking risks, something he believes is impossible right now. And so far, no one has been able to come up with anything but conjecture to prove him wrong. If it's even possible to prove such a thing. Absolutely the case. My question is: why is it bad that he might have to take risks? Is poker a badly designed game because top players lose a hand now and then? IdrA wins 80% of his ladder games and wins tournaments (which, by the way, are designed so that moving on to another round depends on more than the outcome of a single game.) He appears to feel that if his play's strong enough he should be able to win 100% of his games. Unfortunately, not all games are like that, particularly those that rely on hiding information from the players, as Starcraft does. That doesn't make it bad game design. Edit: I play zerg, I cheer for zerg, and I think IdrA's a great player. However, he's no game designer, and he seems to let his self-interest color his opinions more than many of his peers. In poker you play hundreds of hands... Unless you want every tournament to be a best of xxx the argument doesn't follow. I feel sc2 is too volatile. Sure you can say in the long run it evens out, but I think that's poor game design. Okay, here's an example. A chess grandmaster can play 50 simultaneous games of chess against very, very, very good players and win them all. Idra, who no one can deny is an exceptional starcraft player, has an 80% winrate... I mean, I think that's absurdly low for a professional playing mostly amateurs. And I realize he plays other pros, but he also plays people like Pride, Maker, LiquidWater... people who just use ridiculous all-ins that are not even optimized. How on earth do these people have mmr's that compare with him? I think making overlord speed hatch tech would help this early game volatility. Hallucinate, a hatch tech OL speed, and scan are all good early game scouting methods. Actually, my favorite idea so far is to have an overlord overdrive ability that speeds overlords up for 5 seconds at which point they die. I think that would be interesting .
Most of these ideas can be found in the topic I made here
|
On May 08 2011 08:58 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 08:48 Mailing wrote:On May 08 2011 08:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:Also you are assuming Idra would lose against people like scfou which is dubious. Nestea hasn't faced anybody good yet. Any time a Zerg wins, this is how every Zerg reacts, "it was luck" or "his opponents all sucked". Even when Nestea beat fucking MKP (back when he was Foxer), you had people insisting MKP was a gimmicky one-dimensional player and this meant nothing and Nestea still hadn't beaten anybody "good". What would happen, if MC lost to say oGsTOP. 5 people say that terran is overpowered, or it was luck, or MC played awfully. What happens? They GET IGNORED. Why is it so hard for you people to ignore the small minority of people who post like you just described? Because Idra uses the same argument. First it was Rainbow giving the GSL away to Fruitdealer. Then it was Nestea getting lucky AND not fighting any good players in GSL2. It's not a small minority that uses these kinds of arguments, they are brought up every time someone mentions successful zergs. It's luck or bad opponents.
They are called trolls. They exist for every race, except people do it as zerg because it was semi justified for the last 6 months. Obviously the game is getting better compared to the reapers and 2rax of old, but if protoss was the underpowered race for a long time, do you think they would not complain, even though a protoss idra does not exist?
IdrA just fuels some of it, but the only way to stop it is ignoring it, not making +200 pages on the SOTG thread about it.
|
On May 08 2011 08:57 Mithrandir wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 08:29 Lysenko wrote:On May 08 2011 08:15 Alsn wrote:
Idra wants a way to play zerg without taking risks, something he believes is impossible right now. And so far, no one has been able to come up with anything but conjecture to prove him wrong. If it's even possible to prove such a thing. Absolutely the case. My question is: why is it bad that he might have to take risks? Is poker a badly designed game because top players lose a hand now and then? IdrA wins 80% of his ladder games and wins tournaments (which, by the way, are designed so that moving on to another round depends on more than the outcome of a single game.) He appears to feel that if his play's strong enough he should be able to win 100% of his games. Unfortunately, not all games are like that, particularly those that rely on hiding information from the players, as Starcraft does. That doesn't make it bad game design. Edit: I play zerg, I cheer for zerg, and I think IdrA's a great player. However, he's no game designer, and he seems to let his self-interest color his opinions more than many of his peers. In poker you play hundreds of hands... Unless you want every tournament to be a best of xxx the argument doesn't follow. I feel sc2 is too volatile. Sure you can say in the long run it evens out, but I think that's poor game design. Okay, here's an example. A chess grandmaster can play 50 simultaneous games of chess against very, very, very good players and win them all. Idra, who no one can deny is an exceptional starcraft player, has an 80% winrate... I mean, I think that's absurdly low for a professional playing mostly amateurs. And I realize he plays other pros, but he also plays people like Pride, Maker, LiquidWater... people who just use ridiculous all-ins that are not even optimized. How on earth do these people have mmr's that compare with him? I think making overlord speed hatch tech would help this early game volatility. Hallucinate, a hatch tech OL speed, and scan are all good early game scouting methods. Actually, my favorite idea so far is to have an overlord overdrive ability that speeds overlords up for 5 seconds at which point they die. I think that would be interesting .
why not just have the overlord lose health the longer its in that "phase" where it would lose like 30 health every second... that way zerg doesnt have 4 units that die no matter what for their purpose.
|
Could this be called an official troll tweet from IGN?
IGNProLeague IGN Pro League
@G4MR I am announcing that I may or may not make an announcement to announce that I may or may not be announcing our casters soon.
Who can I trust, is this a tweet with an agenda?
|
On May 08 2011 08:29 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 08:15 Alsn wrote:
Idra wants a way to play zerg without taking risks, something he believes is impossible right now. And so far, no one has been able to come up with anything but conjecture to prove him wrong. If it's even possible to prove such a thing. Absolutely the case. My question is: why is it bad that he might have to take risks? Is poker a badly designed game because top players lose a hand now and then? IdrA wins 80% of his ladder games and wins tournaments (which, by the way, are designed so that moving on to another round depends on more than the outcome of a single game.) He appears to feel that if his play's strong enough he should be able to win 100% of his games. Unfortunately, not all games are like that, particularly those that rely on hiding information from the players, as Starcraft does. That doesn't make it bad game design. Edit: I play zerg, I cheer for zerg, and I think IdrA's a great player. However, he's no game designer, and he seems to let his self-interest color his opinions more than many of his peers. I never said it was bad if he has to take risks. I was simply stating that he doesn't want to need to, but that he feels he must.
Also, how would you prove him wrong? I'm not saying he is right(I feel he probably isn't), but how would you prove it?
|
Idra doesn't think he should win 100% of his games.
You know how he gg's to certain players? Those rare occurrences, at the top of tourneys or against strong players on ladder? That's when he feels that he was outplayed.
|
On May 08 2011 09:46 Mailing wrote:
Idra doesn't think he should win 100% of his games.
You know how he gg's to certain players? Those rare occurrences, at the top of tourneys or against strong players on ladder? That's when he feels that he was outplayed. That's the thing though, how do you measure "skill"? If it's just who he feels worthy then he just wants to arbitrarily win against people who plays in a way that he considers "unfair" and not really a test of "skill" at all.
|
|
|
LOL gretorp just cheeked tyler on nasl, said duke has shitty runners
|
On May 08 2011 08:57 Mithrandir wrote:
In poker you play hundreds of hands... Unless you want every tournament to be a best of xxx the argument doesn't follow.
Tournaments are already generally best of 3, 5, or 7. And, in Starcraft, you have more opportunities (even as Zerg) to learn some of your opponent's hidden information.
However, no changes to the game except removing the fog of war mechanic will make it like chess, where everyone can see everything all the time.
|
For those of you that want to know what IdrA is talking about. Make sure you catch the VOD of stalife vs. Ret Game 2 in the NASL from tonight.
I'm going to spoil it to explain my point so if you don't want to know who won stop reading here.
Basically Stalife went all-in with 6 raxes. All his drone scout saw was 1 rax and no gas. Ret literally had no idea the 6 rax was coming. There would have been no way for him to scout it. Stalife had his raxes far from the edges of the base so overlords would have had 0 chance of scouting the raxes.
So Ret basically had to guess what Stalife was doing. He wrongfully guessed stalife was going 1 rax FE (like he did in the previous game). Result? Stalife pushes out with marines and ret has 0 chance to defend as he was droning up. Game ends. And the thing is it doesn't matter who Ret was facing. If someone if much less skill did the same thing to him he would have lost. Skill plays no factor into who won that game. The only determining factor is whether Ret guesses right or not.
That's stupid and bad for esports. And it was a terrible game.
|
On May 08 2011 09:35 Alsn wrote:
Also, how would you prove him wrong? I'm not saying he is right(I feel he probably isn't), but how would you prove it?
Proving him wrong isn't my goal -- I believe what he's saying, I'm just disputing that it's a design problem.
|
On May 08 2011 10:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Skill plays no factor into who won that game. The only determining factor is whether Ret guesses right or not.
That's not entirely accurate, because even if Ret guesses right, it just gets him farther into the game, it doesn't necessarily win it.
However, if that tactic on that map is so absolutely bulletproof, why would people not choose it 100% of the time in TvZ and win each and every game?
|
On May 08 2011 10:27 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2011 10:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Skill plays no factor into who won that game. The only determining factor is whether Ret guesses right or not. That's not entirely accurate, because even if Ret guesses right, it just gets him farther into the game, it doesn't necessarily win it. However, if that tactic on that map is so absolutely bulletproof, why would people not choose it 100% of the time in TvZ and win each and every game?
It's not bulletproof. Did you even read what I said? If Ret guessed it was a 6rax then he could have defended it and would have been ahead (2 bases vs 1?). If he guesses wrong (which he did) he is dead. It is the terran deciding he wants to flip a coin and hope that his opponent guesses wrong.
Admittedly this isn't a perfect example because Ret could still lose if he guesses right. But odds are he would have won had it known it was coming.
|
i have to respond to idra's rant about zerg, not saying he's totally wrong, but are there any completely safe builds in any matchup? and second considering how he talks about beating people that are worse than him....has he ever admitted that anyone in a race other than zerg is actually better than him, because in my estimation, he thinks he's better in all his matches therefore when he loses it must be because of imbalance.
i would also like to question why zergs think that some of these warpgate rushes are too powerful? i mean if protoss and terran need to have the timings of mutas in order to build cannons and turrets against a harass that may or may not be coming and bunkers and cannons on expands against a rush that may or may not be coming, why shouldn't zerg be required to know the same timings and defend against the prossibility as well? it seems to me that these fake expand rushes that zerg has qq'd about would be stoppable with 2-3 spines going down at the time of the expansion, that way you have a defense if it gets cancelled, and unlike turrets and cannons, if that rush doesn't come you can always move the spines to your expansions to protect them
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
