Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 2427

On June 30 2012 07:25 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Okay I'm off, thanks for the positive responses to my post. Hopefully the discussion can calm down in its wake! =]

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.)

On June 30 2012 07:22 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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.

On June 30 2012 07:17 Batch wrote:

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 07:25 crms wrote:
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?

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.

On June 30 2012 07:36 Whitewing wrote:


You missed the point entirely. His entire point was that discussing the idea that "there is no sweet spot" is pointless, useless, and merely an exercise in frustration. You can't know that, you don't have evidence of that, and you haven't tried everything. No player has tried everything. And no, the matchup wasn't balanced before the patch.

On June 30 2012 07:59 Amlitzer wrote:

None of that is Avilos fault though, it's YOUR fault as a host. YOU decided not to have him speak on last weeks SotG back when you all were shit talking better players than yourself. YOU decided to not let him speak in till after QXC had already trampled all over Idra's "argument", which made him more moody than usual. As a close friend of his YOU should know how ridiculously emotional Idra can get when he is on tilt from losing, yet YOU did nothing to stop it. Yeah, Avilo is kind of dumb for walking into such an obvious trap, but he is young and is allowed to make those mistakes. I however expected a lot more maturity from people who are nearly TWICE this kid's age.

Also, congrats on saying more in this one post than you ever have so far in SotG. Why don't you give us this insight where people will actually be able to see it, like the show is intended?

On June 30 2012 07:36 Whitewing wrote:


You missed the point entirely. His entire point was that discussing the idea that "there is no sweet spot" is pointless, useless, and merely an exercise in frustration. You can't know that, you don't have evidence of that, and you haven't tried everything. No player has tried everything. And no, the matchup wasn't balanced before the patch.