|
I say, compile all of the Tyler quotes about the door analogy. Spotlight it, and make it required reading for every player out there. The level of insight is profound and deep yet simple to understand.
As much as we want SotG to delve a bit deeper into balance, the fact is that it's the wrong place to have that discussion despite having all the right people. The discussion should be through other channels, like other shows such as the Imbalanced Show, not through SotG, which is meant to give a broad, more general brush over the entire SC2 community, not just balance.
The people on SotG are very busy, so there are oftentimes some sort of time constraints on the show. It would be a crime to the community if they spent 100 out of 120 minutes of the show having an unproductive balance argument while scrambling to discuss the overall community in the little remaining time.
|
On April 08 2011 10:41 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 10:36 hinnolinn wrote:
Okay, let's stretch this metaphor as far as we can. Let's say there are a huge number of doors, so many that you can't see all of them from where you stand. Let's say the zerg players have opened up every door you can see. How many times will you send them out saying "I'm sure there are more doors you haven't tried, or unlocked, that I can't see," before you might come to the thought that there's something inherently wrong with the race? if there are a million doors, and you can see 100 of them from where you stand, and youve opened 100 out of 1000000 would you come back with the opinion that "not enough of my options work"?
Isn't it even more ridiculous for the person standing there that can only see open doors to say that they haven't tried enough options? My point was that Tyler and Day9 are sitting still and can't see all the doors, but they keep sending the zergs out to open more.
|
On April 08 2011 03:43 Swarmed wrote:
@Tyler
It's an interesting analogy which I would love to go along with but it implies that although you can't open some doors yet, you've already identified them and can differentiate between them.
And sure, why not. But Day[9]'s "just mass infestors", besides being very unconvincing to most anyone actually playing Zerg (even at low masters in my case), shows little other than joyful ignorance of time required to get there (even rushing) and the min/gas ratio issue overall with Zerg which prevents infestor play from rising above "cute" status (Lalush's post). It's not like Zerg players haven't thought of using infestors before Day[9]...
And even so, this is a suggestion offered right after a "balance" patch that just did buff infestor dps and total damage vs armored, so you kinda have to laugh at the whole "keep trying to open doors". Yeah, keep trying, especially after it gets patched :/
This doesn't touch upon the fact that there is a larger design issue with Zerg supposed to stay ahead in bases/drone count but that has much bigger supply issues than in BW thanks to queens and 2+food roaches/hydras/everything but lings, basically making Zerg "peak" around late midgame / early lategame but then it's all downhill from there.
What day9 is saying is that sometimes you have to do stupid shit to stumble upon smart shit. That's part of starcraft.
Plus, you raise another issue in your last paragraph. You have basically made the assumption that you are dealing with some form of weakness. That's the leap of faith here, not what Day9 is saying. We don't know (and we probably never will) whether the game is perfectly balanced - it will constantly be reinvented. Just look at BW: every few years, every MU slides one way or the other, but most people realize that it's the players that decide who wins the most, not the races.
My problem with Idra is that he jumps to the conclusion that no only A) is Zerg worse, but also B) he as a player is better.
|
On April 08 2011 10:48 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 10:41 turdburgler wrote:On April 08 2011 10:36 hinnolinn wrote:
Okay, let's stretch this metaphor as far as we can. Let's say there are a huge number of doors, so many that you can't see all of them from where you stand. Let's say the zerg players have opened up every door you can see. How many times will you send them out saying "I'm sure there are more doors you haven't tried, or unlocked, that I can't see," before you might come to the thought that there's something inherently wrong with the race? if there are a million doors, and you can see 100 of them from where you stand, and youve opened 100 out of 1000000 would you come back with the opinion that "not enough of my options work"? Isn't it even more ridiculous for the person standing there that can only see open doors to say that they haven't tried enough options? My point was that Tyler and Day9 are sitting still and can't see all the doors, but they keep sending the zergs out to open more.
This analogy is getting out of hand.
Here's the subtext of what Day 9 and Tyler are really saying. Let's keep it simple:
A competitor player complaining about balance accomplishes nothing.
The only people that can change the game design and balance is Blizzard.
It does not improve a player's game plan, mechanics, or increase their likelihood of winning.
Worst of all, believing that the game is imbalanced is a defeatist attitude that gives the psychological edge to your opponent (see Huk vs Idra MLG Metalopolis match).
|
|
|
On April 08 2011 11:00 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 10:48 hinnolinn wrote:On April 08 2011 10:41 turdburgler wrote:On April 08 2011 10:36 hinnolinn wrote:
Okay, let's stretch this metaphor as far as we can. Let's say there are a huge number of doors, so many that you can't see all of them from where you stand. Let's say the zerg players have opened up every door you can see. How many times will you send them out saying "I'm sure there are more doors you haven't tried, or unlocked, that I can't see," before you might come to the thought that there's something inherently wrong with the race? if there are a million doors, and you can see 100 of them from where you stand, and youve opened 100 out of 1000000 would you come back with the opinion that "not enough of my options work"? Isn't it even more ridiculous for the person standing there that can only see open doors to say that they haven't tried enough options? My point was that Tyler and Day9 are sitting still and can't see all the doors, but they keep sending the zergs out to open more. This analogy is getting out of hand. Here's the subtext of what Day 9 and Tyler are really saying. Let's keep it simple: A competitor player complaining about balance accomplishes nothing. The only people that can change the game design and balance is Blizzard. It does not improve a player's game plan, mechanics, or increase their likelihood of winning. Worst of all, believing that the game is imbalanced is a defeatist attitude that gives the psychological edge to your opponent (see Huk vs Idra MLG Metalopolis match).
i. This is untrue, complaining about balance and trying new things are not mutually exclusive
ii. Blizzard listens to the community, so while they do have the ultimate word, speaking out does have an effect
iii. This is true, I wouldn't say it impairs it either though
iv. This is also true but the same thing could be said for when you just have a straight up weakness in a certain matchup, not because of imbalance but just because you're not so good at it.
|
On April 08 2011 11:07 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 11:00 Defacer wrote:On April 08 2011 10:48 hinnolinn wrote:On April 08 2011 10:41 turdburgler wrote:On April 08 2011 10:36 hinnolinn wrote:
Okay, let's stretch this metaphor as far as we can. Let's say there are a huge number of doors, so many that you can't see all of them from where you stand. Let's say the zerg players have opened up every door you can see. How many times will you send them out saying "I'm sure there are more doors you haven't tried, or unlocked, that I can't see," before you might come to the thought that there's something inherently wrong with the race? if there are a million doors, and you can see 100 of them from where you stand, and youve opened 100 out of 1000000 would you come back with the opinion that "not enough of my options work"? Isn't it even more ridiculous for the person standing there that can only see open doors to say that they haven't tried enough options? My point was that Tyler and Day9 are sitting still and can't see all the doors, but they keep sending the zergs out to open more. This analogy is getting out of hand. Here's the subtext of what Day 9 and Tyler are really saying. Let's keep it simple: A competitor player complaining about balance accomplishes nothing. The only people that can change the game design and balance is Blizzard. It does not improve a player's game plan, mechanics, or increase their likelihood of winning. Worst of all, believing that the game is imbalanced is a defeatist attitude that gives the psychological edge to your opponent (see Huk vs Idra MLG Metalopolis match). i. This is untrue, complaining about balance and trying new things are not mutually exclusive ii. Blizzard listens to the community, so while they do have the ultimate word, speaking out does have an effect iii. This is true, I wouldn't say it impairs it either though iv. This is also true but the same thing could be said for when you just have a straight up weakness in a certain matchup, not because of imbalance but just because you're not so good at it.
i. We're in agreement. Balance and trying new things are completely unrelated. The former accomplishes nothing, and the latter leads to growth and personal development.
ii. The government's role is to serve the community, and listen to it. But anyone that pins their hope and success on a faceless establishment is a little foolish (I'm not saying that IdrA is doing that, he does seem to work extremely hard).
While discussing balance may one day influence decision-makers, it does very little to improve the situation at hand.
iii. Agreed. But complaining and feeling sorry for yourself takes up a lot more mental energy than people realize. And it's a surefire way to de-motivate yourself.
iv. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, being less good give you less of a chance to win. That's how the universe should work. But being better than your opponent but allowing your own insecurity and self-doubt defeat you is a sad-sack tragedy.
|
On April 08 2011 10:43 Defacer wrote:
This is what I think is kind of funny about IdrA's obsession with balance -- If IdrA absolutely, truly believes that ZvP is broken, then he has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from trying crazy, risky shit and just having fun.
That's what I think Day 9 was alluding to with his suggestion of massing infestors. If playing conservative doesn't work, then fuck it. Just go extreme and see what works.
That seems, indeed, what runs through the top Z players' minds at the moment. Fruitdealer has practically given up playing a "real" game against P. When asked to give a piece of advice for July facing MC, he told him not to waste time practicing and agonizing but leave it up to "god" or some such.
And here, in this thread, the balance discussion seems to go with "faith" as well. Such as there are closed "doors" (without saying what that might be) waiting to be open. How is it not a faith unless you can identify those doors? 
Less faith-based assertion seems to be - If there were some super human playing Zerg with 20 fingers and 10 eyes, reading opponents mind and actions correctly real time, all the time and with an ability to preemptively react, using proper strats and units (preferably all units), eyes all over the screen and mini map, and not making a single mistake while being able to multitask like a supercomputer (not the computer AI, lol) then Zerg would be THE best race. (see: the roach micro-macro bot thread) Maybe. Or maybe not. But you still can't know for sure nor can you prove that. So that still sounds pretty much like a faith to me.
So currently the balance discussion runs around different faiths of different individuals. Like many discussions that are faith-related, I don't see anything constructive coming out of this nor do I have any vested interest in the balance of this game so I think I'm going to be out of this.
|
The other thing I don't understand is why does it even come down to balance when something is almost certainly wrong with the game given Zerg's outcries.
Do people have any idea how crappy it feels to have your opponent all-in off one base FOR ALMOST 10 IN GAME MINUTES without dealing direct economic damage (see Dimaga vs San). It doesn't even matter if you win or lose, just the fact that your opponent can go all-in for that long makes the game feel pretty terrible. So yeah it might be balanced and we don't know, but we can be pretty sure overall it feels like crap to play zerg.
|
On April 08 2011 06:32 IShowUMagic wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 08 2011 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Here's an analogy:
You are regularly presented with a set of 5 doors. The only way you ever get food is by opening the doors. Every time that you opened 5 doors, you got food from at least one of them. You've currently opened 2 doors, but can't figure out how to open any more. Are you going to spend your time trying to open a 3rd door, or are you gonna ponder whether opening all 5 doors guarantees food? How much time will you spend trying to open the 3rd door, and how much time will you spend checking the two opened doors again and again?
Day[9] thinks StarCraft players' only job is to open doors. There is nothing else. Perhaps on your lunch break you can engage in some idle conversation about the metaphysics of the doors and the morality of opening them. But it's just idle conversation. 99% of the time it's just this: open doors, open doors, open doors.
I love you Tyler but I don't love the analogy. You're right, 99% of the time it's open doors, open doors, open doors. That's what Idra does. Throughout MLG alone I saw him execute hydra timing attacks, burrow roach timings, speedling bane style etc. in addition to his typical huge macro style. Idra is opening as many doors as he possibly can. The problem with the analogy is that sotg IS two hours set aside every week to ponder whether opening all 5 doors guarantees food. That's what the show is for. If you want to see Idra opening doors, watch his stream or see what he comes up with in his matches. SOTG isn't a zerg strategy hour. He's definitely opening doors like he should be. To have him on the show and then slam him for pondering on the meta-door situation is just silly. It all boils down to this: the game is balanced or it isn't. If it is, zergs should be opening as many doors as they can. If it isn't, zergs should be raising awareness to get blizzard's attention while still opening as many doors as they can. That's why I kind of see this meta discussion about balance discussion as useless; top zergs ARE opening doors whether the game is balanced or not. I wish everyone would stop arguing like zergs are inherently less capable of solving problems than everyone else. I posted similar to this earlier but nobody addressed it: There are two reasons to have the opinion that zergs just haven't opened enough doors: 1. You think the game is balanced 2. You've simply accepted that the game is what it is and balance isn't our concern Reason 1 is fine, and I completely respect that opinion (while disagreeing). That's because you wouldn't have this opinion for this reason if you thought the game was imbalanced. Reason 2 is not OK in my book because your opinion won't change if the game is imbalanced or not. If you fall into this category, your reasoning is completely arbitrary. For example, would it be ok to declare terran underpowered if marines spawned with 5 hp? You could still say, "Have you tried walling off with a bunker and going 3rax reaper marauder with lots of turrets and concussive shells? You just need to open more doors." That might be a viable strategy and there may actually even be other doors to open. Saying that to a terran in that situation, though, and adding that complaining is useless would be belittling and insulting because the game in that case would actually be completely broken.
I don't know how you can read Tyler's post and respond with something so bizarrely misdirected. No, it doesn't boil down to whether the game is balanced or not. It's not about "thinking the game is balanced" or "accepting the game for what it is and believing that balance isn't our concern."
It seems that you've heard and said the word 'balance' so much that it has brain washed you completely. It is never about balance because balance is ambiguous. We will never know if this game is balanced because balance, like perfection in something more abstract, is an unobtainable myth that is ever-shifting. Whether or not BW was balanced is unknown, we only learned to accept it as something we will never know. It's not that balance isn't our concern, it's that as far as we're concerned, we will never know if something is truly balanced.
|
On April 08 2011 11:22 Defacer wrote:
i. We're in agreement. Balance and trying new things are completely unrelated. The former accomplishes nothing, and the latter leads to growth and personal development.
ii. The government's role is to serve the community, and listen to it. But anyone that pins their hope and success on a faceless establishment is a little foolish (I'm not saying that IdrA is doing that, he does seem to work extremely hard).
While discussing balance may one day influence decision-makers, it does very little to improve the situation at hand.
iii. Agreed. But complaining and feeling sorry for yourself takes up a lot more mental energy than people realize. And it's a surefire way to de-motivate yourself.
iv. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, being less good give you less of a chance to win. That's how the universe should work. But being better than your opponent but allowing your own insecurity and self-doubt defeat you is a sad-sack tragedy.
Understanding balance and where things get wonky would be a very good way for a competitive player to understand what gameplay situations they should try to avoid to increase their chances to win. Telling people that they shouldn't think of balance seems to be telling them they shouldn't even try to understand the full game both good and bad. And if people are interested in winning, they should most definitely try to understand the game as much as possible.
Also, NOBODY knows if Idra would have won that battle against Huk. There are a lot of people saying that Idra would have rolled Huk, or at least won, but even on SotG, Day9 said that a lot of the time when casting he would state that a protoss was messing up by attacking, and then the toss would roll over their opponent. So I wouldn't take anybody's word for how the game would have ended.
Perhaps if, like in TSL, somebody set up a custom game with all of the units in that fight and started from there, we could come to a conclusion.
|
On April 08 2011 11:26 Logo wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why does it even come down to balance when something is almost certainly wrong with the game given Zerg's outcries.
Do people have any idea how crappy it feels to have your opponent all-in off one base FOR ALMOST 10 IN GAME MINUTES without dealing direct economic damage (see Dimaga vs San). It doesn't even matter if you win or lose, just the fact that your opponent can go all-in for that long makes the game feel pretty terrible. So yeah it might be balanced and we don't know, but we can be pretty sure overall it feels like crap to play zerg.
That is called creating an imbalance. Everyone who plays wants to achieve it as a long or short term goal. Like if you have about a dozen lings and you see an opening to get them into your opponents base when they have little to defend it will you feel sorry them until they max or get more units to fight it off? My guess is no.
|
The one thing I don't understand about IdrA is that if he thinks Zerg are objectively underpowered and that it's impossible to beat Protoss in an even match - why does he still play Zerg? I know that sounds stupid - but seriously, he is trying to make a living off of this game. If he 100% believes that the race he plays is weaker than the others despite their recent buff, how can he expect to do well in tournaments? You wouldn't enter a running race with a broken foot and expect to win, would you?
I understand the counter argument to this would be that he has devoted all of his time to Zerg, and that switching suddenly would mess his game up even more. To an extent I am probably being ignorant, but if you really think you have exhausted all of the possibilities of a race and you're still coming up short - you are either going to have to hope that Blizzard jumps in and changes the game some more, try and be a hero and win with a 'broken' race (which would probably reinforce the argument that they aren't broken), or just switch to one of the other two races.
I am probably looking at this whole thing in the wrong way, though. Apologies in advance for my ignorance.
|
On April 08 2011 10:58 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 03:43 Swarmed wrote:
@Tyler
It's an interesting analogy which I would love to go along with but it implies that although you can't open some doors yet, you've already identified them and can differentiate between them.
And sure, why not. But Day[9]'s "just mass infestors", besides being very unconvincing to most anyone actually playing Zerg (even at low masters in my case), shows little other than joyful ignorance of time required to get there (even rushing) and the min/gas ratio issue overall with Zerg which prevents infestor play from rising above "cute" status (Lalush's post). It's not like Zerg players haven't thought of using infestors before Day[9]...
And even so, this is a suggestion offered right after a "balance" patch that just did buff infestor dps and total damage vs armored, so you kinda have to laugh at the whole "keep trying to open doors". Yeah, keep trying, especially after it gets patched :/
This doesn't touch upon the fact that there is a larger design issue with Zerg supposed to stay ahead in bases/drone count but that has much bigger supply issues than in BW thanks to queens and 2+food roaches/hydras/everything but lings, basically making Zerg "peak" around late midgame / early lategame but then it's all downhill from there. What day9 is saying is that sometimes you have to do stupid shit to stumble upon smart shit. That's part of starcraft.
And what idra is saying is that protoss doesn't have to do this. They have extremely safe openings that work for a large number of builds. They have an extremely simple unit composition that works against just about any zerg composition. The only thing protoss players have to do to reach MC's level is to practice micro and macro mechanics..
While zergs like CatZ are looking for the new "magic builds/unit comps/etc", others are just grinding mechanics and timings waiting for balance patches. One of these two groups is making an income though, if you look at nestea/idra/july/ret ><
What everyone is suggesting, that pro zergs just try random stuff until they find what works, might be true, but it does not seen to be a prospective way to make money in this game.
|
On April 08 2011 11:43 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 11:26 Logo wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why does it even come down to balance when something is almost certainly wrong with the game given Zerg's outcries.
Do people have any idea how crappy it feels to have your opponent all-in off one base FOR ALMOST 10 IN GAME MINUTES without dealing direct economic damage (see Dimaga vs San). It doesn't even matter if you win or lose, just the fact that your opponent can go all-in for that long makes the game feel pretty terrible. So yeah it might be balanced and we don't know, but we can be pretty sure overall it feels like crap to play zerg. That is called creating an imbalance. Everyone who plays wants to achieve it as a long or short term goal. Like if you have about a dozen lings and you see an opening to get them into your opponents base when they have little to defend it will you feel sorry them until they max or get more units to fight it off? My guess is no.
That's not even a reply to what I wrote. I don't even know how to address it because it makes no sense.
Unless you are trying to say it's a good thing that it continuously feels like complete shit to play zerg.
|
On April 08 2011 11:26 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 10:43 Defacer wrote:
This is what I think is kind of funny about IdrA's obsession with balance -- If IdrA absolutely, truly believes that ZvP is broken, then he has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from trying crazy, risky shit and just having fun.
That's what I think Day 9 was alluding to with his suggestion of massing infestors. If playing conservative doesn't work, then fuck it. Just go extreme and see what works.
That seems, indeed, what runs through the top Z players' minds at the moment. Fruitdealer has practically given up playing a "real" game against P. When asked to give a piece of advice for July facing MC, he told him not to waste time practicing and agonizing but leave it up to "god" or some such. And here, in this thread, the balance discussion seems to go with "faith" as well. Such as there are closed "doors" (without saying what that might be) waiting to be open. How is it not a faith unless you can identify those doors? Less faith-based assertion seems to be - If there were some super human playing Zerg with 20 fingers and 10 eyes, reading opponents mind and actions correctly real time, all the time and with an ability to preemptively react, using proper strats and units (preferably all units), eyes all over the screen and mini map, and not making a single mistake while being able to multitask like a supercomputer (not the computer AI, lol) then Zerg would be THE best race. (see: the roach micro-macro bot thread) Maybe. Or maybe not. But you still can't know for sure nor can you prove that. So that still sounds pretty much like a faith to me. So currently the balance discussion runs around different faiths of different individuals. Like many discussions that are faith-related, I don't see anything constructive coming out of this nor do I have any vested interest in the balance of this game so I think I'm going to be out of this.
I'm not sure were all this discussion of faith originated from. Experimentation is typical and necessary component of development and learning, in any field, whether it be sports or science or art or design.
Day 9 and Tyler aren't suggesting that IdrA 'believe' in the game. They're suggesting that there are some strategies and vulnerabilities that haven't even been exploited yet.
|
On April 08 2011 11:48 Specimenbear wrote:
The one thing I don't understand about IdrA is that if he thinks Zerg are objectively underpowered and that it's impossible to beat Protoss in an even match - why does he still play Zerg? I know that sounds stupid - but seriously, he is trying to make a living off of this game. If he 100% believes that the race he plays is weaker than the others despite their recent buff, how can he expect to do well in tournaments? You wouldn't enter a running race with a broken foot and expect to win, would you?
I understand the counter argument to this would be that he has devoted all of his time to Zerg, and that switching suddenly would mess his game up even more. To an extent I am probably being ignorant, but if you really think you have exhausted all of the possibilities of a race and you're still coming up short - you are either going to have to hope that Blizzard jumps in and changes the game some more, try and be a hero and win with a 'broken' race (which would probably reinforce the argument that they aren't broken), or just switch to one of the other two races.
I am probably looking at this whole thing in the wrong way, though. Apologies in advance for my ignorance.
You basically paraphrased an entire discussion between iNcontroL and IdrA from a previous episode. And yeah, I don't really get his counter argument too much. I mean... let's low ball it and say Starcraft II only lasts 10 years (as opposed to 12 years of Brood War). That's still a good 9 years you have to play with your new race. I think the down time of re-mastering another race will pay for it in the end.
|
On April 08 2011 11:56 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 11:43 Baarn wrote:On April 08 2011 11:26 Logo wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why does it even come down to balance when something is almost certainly wrong with the game given Zerg's outcries.
Do people have any idea how crappy it feels to have your opponent all-in off one base FOR ALMOST 10 IN GAME MINUTES without dealing direct economic damage (see Dimaga vs San). It doesn't even matter if you win or lose, just the fact that your opponent can go all-in for that long makes the game feel pretty terrible. So yeah it might be balanced and we don't know, but we can be pretty sure overall it feels like crap to play zerg. That is called creating an imbalance. Everyone who plays wants to achieve it as a long or short term goal. Like if you have about a dozen lings and you see an opening to get them into your opponents base when they have little to defend it will you feel sorry them until they max or get more units to fight it off? My guess is no. That's not even a reply to what I wrote. I don't even know how to address it because it makes no sense. Unless you are trying to say it's a good thing that it continuously feels like complete shit to play zerg.
If you know at 10 minutes a strong push will come then why not make more shit to defend it or just simple produce attack units from the point you get your building or tech on a continual basis just in case a push comes? If your opponent scouts and sees all this shit then it decreases the chances they will attack until they have more stuff. If your opponent doesn't scout and just waltzes in your base to find out he's fucked then everything's alright. You can attack to end it or go back to your special time in your base.
|
To be fair to Idra, whining about balance and seeking new strategies isn't mutually exclusive. You can do both reasonably efficiently.
|
On April 08 2011 12:10 AndAgain wrote:
To be fair to Idra, whining about balance and seeking new strategies isn't mutually exclusive. You can do both reasonably efficiently.
He does xD
IdrA's job is to find new ways to win, he just complains about his working conditions to his supervisors while working 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
