|
I have seen many storms in water glasses, but this takes the cake. Avilo brought it on himself.
|
On June 30 2012 06:31 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 06:19 Liquid`NonY wrote:On June 30 2012 06:10 skeldark wrote:On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.) The problem is not "making a mistake". I dont even know this avilo guy and it have nothing to do with the topic they discussed. It have to do with social behaviour and quality of entertainment. They way they talked to him and the fact that jp throw him out in the middle of the sentence after inviting and blaming him is not an mistake. It shows their character. Thats the problem. They think. its funny to invite a guy blame him and throw him out again and this is great content for the audience. If you want this level of entertaining you can just turn on the tv. Its nothing for me and for most people here. I think it wasn't perfect to drop avilo so suddenly but I think it was right to drop him. I think if JP had just interrupted and said "Avilo, thanks for coming on but I think this is going downhill and I'm cutting it short" then that would have been fine. I find it interesting how people can say the segment was so bad, and so bad for Avilo, and then also complain about JP cutting the segment short. I hope that the complaint is only about the manner in which he did it, not that he did it. Cutting him off without saying anything at all was just a neutral, no nonsense way to do it. Politeness and rudeness were both possible and neither route was taken. But I do understand the sentiment that not saying anything at all is rude, though I think that's a level of sensitivity too fine for a situation in which people were exploding with emotion. At some point a situation gets so emotional and extreme that common politeness decreases in value and decisive actions to end the situation increase in value. i agree he can cut it short. And yes he should say "thank you..." thats showing a minimum of respect, what he did not. But its not only the cut off. Its ,invite him, make fun about him, blame him and than kick him because it gets emotional. If it was only a exploding, jp could at least say sorry for what he did. But even in the end they blamed him in the same sentence they said sorry and defended the cut off. I understand your position and that you where happy to just get over it and that this stops at the moment. But you must agree that if you just watch this part of the show you see lowest quality of social behaviour and entertainment. And that was not an mistake or an exploding they set it up from the beginning so it had to end this way.
You act as if Avilo didn't make the conscious decision to come onto the show. He knows how he is regarded within the community and he took the opportunity to go on SOTG knowing it would probably end poorly for him. He shouldn't have been invited on the show in the first place because he had no place there, yet he went anyway and was pretty rude.
|
|
|
On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.)
I love that there is a philosophy major on the show, good shit man.
|
On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.)
WRONG. Bringing up LuckyFools Blog about how Zerg can punish Terran for greedy 3 CC build but T cannot punish zerg for greedy play was something new being brought to the table and set up more valid points.. but he was just insulted by the frat house immature idiots: Idra, JP, and Incontrol
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Just watched the whole video a few minutes ago. Like other people have been saying, I enjoyed the QXC/Idra discussion about TvZ. However, the way that Avilo was treated, while not being "disgusting" like some others are claiming, it was unwarranted. I realize that both sides were at fault (Avilo interrupting, JP/Incontrol instigating). But to just completely shit on the guy... Seems like they took it a step too far.
My response to Incontrol would be that, while I can respect you as a player. It does seem to me that you are/were belittling people. Making fun of his lisp, telling people to fuck themselves. You seem to be acting like all it was just some playful joking around, but it seemed like there was nothing "playful" about it. You were snide, and disrespectful. Critique his play if you want, but it seems to me, if you are going to invite the guy to the show, at least have a little class about it.
|
I miss the old days where SOTG was a mess and it was loved for it. I personally liked the whole Avilo incident and the overall show. It was really entertanining. People should lighten up a little. It's just a game and there are a lot of really cruel REAL injustices out there to fight. This is not it people. Sometimes people don't like each other and sometimes they tell each other just that. It might be uncomfortable for some, entertaining for others, but c'mon. Avilo will live.
On another note, imma send some positivity out there. Love you NoNy, InControl, IdrA, QXC, JP! and even you Avilo!
|
On June 30 2012 06:49 PesteNoire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.) WRONG. Bringing up LuckyFools Blog about how Zerg can punish Terran for greedy 3 CC build but T cannot punish zerg for greedy play was something new being brought to the table and set up more valid points.. but he was just insulted by the frat house immature idiots: Idra, JP, and Incontrol
That only works if everyone is familiar with the blog post. Yes, Idra and Incontrol were being rude by disregarding LuckyFool as maybe having a valid point. (By the way, JP didn't say anything, so I don't know why are bringing his name in to this). In any case, his point wasn't particularly new. He just said it in a different way than qxc had. It just made it sound like he wasn't listening to the discussion that qxc and Idra had already had.
|
Norway1937 Posts
yeah.. so can we get QXC as a regular, please?
|
Also, as a separate issue, can people spoiler Tyler's post if they aren't going to respond point by point, but just give a sentence of agreement or disagreement? It's just wasted space. We all know what the blog post was, we don't need it quoted five times in the thread.
|
On June 30 2012 06:49 PesteNoire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.) WRONG. Bringing up LuckyFools Blog about how Zerg can punish Terran for greedy 3 CC build but T cannot punish zerg for greedy play was something new being brought to the table and set up more valid points.. but he was just insulted by the frat house immature idiots: Idra, JP, and Incontrol
Please ignore shit like this Tyler, everyone with more than 30 posts certainly appreciates the time and effort you put into your take on the situation, and I think many agree with what you posted. I certainly do. Whatever SOTG truly is (and that is up for debate, as it is a very unique take on an internet personality talkshow), its awesome and I can't wait for more!
|
On June 30 2012 06:49 PesteNoire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.) WRONG. Bringing up LuckyFools Blog about how Zerg can punish Terran for greedy 3 CC build but T cannot punish zerg for greedy play was something new being brought to the table and set up more valid points.. but he was just insulted by the frat house immature idiots: Idra, JP, and Incontrol
LuckyFools blog is a page long whine with no evidence. 3CC is safe as fuck nowadays with siege before 8:45 to stop roach/ling/bane allins.
|
On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.)
Thank you for taking responsibility for the bullying and bad behavior that went on during that segment. You're a class act. As much as Avilo may have been out of his depth and didn't contribute any insights into the matchup, his treatment on the show said far more about the other co-hosts than it did about Avilo. I don't want SOTG to be like 2GD. Right or wrong, I hold SOTG to a higher standard.
|
On June 30 2012 06:56 Quotidian wrote:
yeah.. so can we get QXC as a regular, please?
This ^^^^^
Best addition to the show in a long time.
I'd love IdrA and QXC as permanent hosts actually, the actual discussion about strategy, balance and players seems to be much more detailed and in-depth overall whenever one of them is on.
|
On June 30 2012 06:56 Quotidian wrote:
yeah.. so can we get QXC as a regular, please?
I loved QXC and would love to see him in SotG more. But I rather see him as a guest every few shows than as a regular.
|
On June 30 2012 07:02 LagT_T wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 06:49 PesteNoire wrote:On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.) WRONG. Bringing up LuckyFools Blog about how Zerg can punish Terran for greedy 3 CC build but T cannot punish zerg for greedy play was something new being brought to the table and set up more valid points.. but he was just insulted by the frat house immature idiots: Idra, JP, and Incontrol LuckyFools blog is a page long whine with no evidence. 3CC is safe as fuck nowadays with siege before 8:45 to stop roach/ling/bane allins.
Says who?I see GM KR terrans dying to busts all day everyday after 3ccing, MVP included, stop spreading bs, thanks.
|
I really enjoyed watching the entire episode, and I honestly don't think there should be so much drama as regards to the Avilo-IdrA debate. I LOVE SotG and I hope you guys don't get too demotivated when you read all the shit in this forum, because it's just the famous vocal minority writing entire short stories about their strong feelings for Avillo, who in my opinion came across as an immature and annoying person.
You even admitted that you made the wrong call, when you decided to bring him in, so I just want to let you know how much I love the show! <3 I hope you keep 'em coming 
|
8748 Posts
On June 30 2012 06:49 PesteNoire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 06:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't think avilo had anything unique to contribute to the discussion. It's his mistake for wanting to come on the show without any good reason to come on the show. He either thought what he had to say was unique and compelling OR he felt his authority was great enough that there's value behind him in particular putting his weight behind common arguments and observations. It wasn't so bad for the show before the latest show, when he originally wanted to come on, but following the qxc/idra discussion was very bad.
SC2 strategy discussions, and balance discussions in general, often happen without anything original being said. There are few units and viable builds in the game. There are few viable styles and broad strategical "moves" which are all defined by different distributions of investments (between army, economy, tech, upgrades, static defense, etc). These broad things are few but their applications are so vast that discussions quickly go beyond anyone's knowledge.
What players typically try to do with their investment distributions is find out the "sweet spot" investment for that moment in that particular game. For example, IdrA claims that there is a sweet spot investment in army that a terran player can do after going 3 CC. This sweet spot puts significant pressure on the zerg. Upping that investment, say 50%, from 2000 resources to 3000 resources, might yield very little benefit, and also makes it impossible to precede it with 3 CC, which makes it a dead-end build.
When a patch comes that significantly changes a matchup, what is usually happening is most of the known sweet spots are no longer so sweet. That's IdrA saying that the old builds don't work. What are the new sweet spots? Well, no one knows for sure or else the discussion wouldn't be happening. So the discussion can't really have a definitive end. You can only have a player from each perspective point vaguely in a direction and agree that some hope exists.
The queen and overlord changes are almost exclusively affecting sweet spots. That is, when IdrA said Stephano using queens offensively was an anomaly, that's the point he's making. This patch didn't change a unit that was core to some army composition. Such a change would change the scope of the discussion because timings would no longer be the main issue (ghost snipe change).
Idra and qxc fleshed out the issues so that anyone who didn't know what the hell was going on with TvZ atm would know. And then they did their best to use all the specific knowledge of the matchup they have, both the outdated pre-patch knowledge and the post-patch fallout, to figure out which alternatives look most promising.
Someone saying that all other options amount to nothing and that the game is fundamentally broken is not helpful. As experienced players, we know for a fact that not all options have been properly attempted. What we know is that one option that terrans were comfortable with and zergs were uncomfortable with is now no longer possible. A player from the race that just got nerfed does not have something interesting to say if whatever they're saying is negative. It's just not possible to have comprehensively proven that there's no hope. The nerfed race is interesting when they say they've figured out a new sweet spot that is looking good.
As soon as Avilo took a negative view for terran, he was setting himself up to be either completely uninteresting and unoriginal or completely ridiculous. QXC knew this fact for himself and poked fun at the situation SOTG was trying to put him in by asking something like "oh so you want me to assume it's imbalanced and defend that?" Avilo asked to be put into that position and proceeded headlong with an errant tact. Most players with more knowledge and experience would refuse to go into the same situation. They certainly wouldn't ask for it.
----
As for the way JP, Geoff and Greg behaved, there's really no defending it either. There's certainly plenty of explaining it. It was nowhere near as bad as some people paint it. Context and history also soften the picture for people who saw only this one incident. But it still wasn't the kind of behavior I'd want to see on a show and not the kind of show that I want to be a part of.
When JP and Geoff said it was happening, I just took a back seat because there have been many things that they do that turn out to be awesome and popular which I wouldn't have done. Now some of those things have gone so bad that I think we'll have to be more careful. I didn't know how this would go. There was a chance it could have been awesome and I don't like preventing things that might turn out awesome just because some sensitive people might be outraged over cringing for two minutes one time.
But it's also our (unpaid) job to bring you awesome, all the damn time. So what bothers me isn't so much that Avilo had a bad time (I'm not responsible for him) but rather that SOTG presented a shitty segment. It's a difficulty of a live show. To quote Geoff, this was a learning experience. We've got to get better. Next time we'll be better. (Unless we suck next time too, and then that'll also be a learning experience, and we'll be better the time after that, trust me.) WRONG. Bringing up LuckyFools Blog about how Zerg can punish Terran for greedy 3 CC build but T cannot punish zerg for greedy play was something new being brought to the table and set up more valid points.. but he was just insulted by the frat house immature idiots: Idra, JP, and Incontrol
This wasn't new  The main issue of the whole discussion is that queens allow zergs to play greedier. I mean, that was the point of the patch. Terran slowed zerg's economy with hellion pressure. Queen range buff makes hellion pressure much less effective. So now terrans are at a disadvantage (relative to pre-patch terrans) because they don't have a substitute for hellions, which their whole gameplan depended on, so they've got to change gameplans or figure out a new substitute for hellions.
As for zergs being able to punish 3 CC terrans, people knew that was possible before the patch and before the blog. The patch did nothing to affect that.
This is what happens with balance patches. One race has something improved without the other race having something improved. You could say that before the patch, each race had ways to punish greediness at a certain time period in the game, either with all-ins or with harass. After the patch, one of the races purposely had the most effective method of doing that removed.
The game isn't supposed to be symmetrical. If one race is good at doing a certain thing at a certain time, then the other races probably aren't as good at doing equivalent things. There are countless things that each race can do. Matchup balance does not depend on races being able to do similar things to each other at similar times.
|
8748 Posts
Okay I'm off, thanks for the positive responses to my post. Hopefully the discussion can calm down in its wake! =]
|
What generation/age group are all of you that are grabbing pitchforks over this avilo interview? Who are you people that are complaining about SOTGs (FREE VIDEOGAME ONLINE PODCAST)not being professional enough? I really have to fucking know because if people are this butthurt over so called 'unprofessionalism' in that broadcast last night, they probably would have committed suicide during Howard Sterns reign on terrestrial radio. Is it the younger generation that's so hyper-sensititive to being offended (which is odd as they grew up with the internert) or is it the older jackoffs that demand professionalism anywhere and everywhere? WHO ARE YOU FUCKING WEIRDOS?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
