|
I would have prefered Incontrol instead of giving excuses for the mess NASL to tell us how are they going to fix it. He told us a "sad" story about how the editing guys work a lot and stay late. Buhuhu. Hire more people! Are those editing guys volunteers?
Is NASL free for all or is it asking for money?
It would be like coming to McDonalds, paying for a Big Mac and getting a burned piece of meat and in a half rotten bun with the explanation that they got only two people working there.
Anyways while I was hoping I would support NASL this season, my money went to GSL instead although I cannot watch games live. NASL will need to give us more then excuses to give them money, personally I am expecting a 50% increase in quality for it to be a serious thing.
IGN league will probably blow them out of the water.
The fact is that in the real world most of the mistakes NASL has had would have resulted in at least the replacement of a few employees by now at any size production company, large or small. Just because your production team has a passion and works long hours does not mean they are qualified to do what you are asking them to. This means you have to either assist them through extra personnel or paying for proper training, or you need to replace them. You cannot just keep plugging away with the staff you have now and expect a large turn around.
It is also kind of stupid for Incontrol to respond to JP with, "ask the editors". Incontrol whether he likes it or not is the mouth piece of NASL, it is his job to ask the editors and relay their response (or he can decide not to and give no comment) to us or JP. He should not be telling us to ask the editors, that is his job not ours.
Lastly you marketed the NASL to have a competitive price point with the GSL. $25 for 3 months rather than $30. In doing so you set up a direct comparison of yourself with them, so to say it is unfair to compare you with them is foolish (and this is not even counting the claims made of unmatched production value which incontrol apologized for on sotg). People are largely upset because they bought a product they were led to believe would be something that it is now clearly not. I blame that some on Incontrol and some on the people foolish enough to buy a product without seeing what it looked like first.
|
I like the NASL and dont think it's been THAT much of a disaster, but Incontrol needs to stop with the excuses.
No one cares about why shit happened, they just care that it did. With a service some people payed 25 dollars for you just need to admit you made a mistake, say you are sorry and that youll fix it. For the most part that is what they have done, but Geoff constantly goes and adds in a "but" then regurgitates an excuse. Not very professional or smart on his part.
|
On April 20 2011 21:44 kNightLite wrote:
Quick suggestion: Why not make Anna's question an actual staple of the podcast? (much like the almighty Cockhorse) Just let her use google voice, forget about the other lame google voice callers.
I greatly appreciate Anna adding variety to SotG's 3-hour long schlongfest, but the interruption gag is getting old =)
This guy might be on to something....
if its going to happen every SotG, why not make a segment out of it :D
|
Two separate thoughts for this post go into two separate blocks. WALL OF TEXT INC
Protoss strategy
+ Show Spoiler +I really loved hearing this discussion of PvZ. It didn't feel like the typical discussion where on the one hand you have people saying OMG ZERG TOO WEAK T_____________T and on the other, YOU JUST NEED TO DROP MORE STOP QQING NOOB. It felt like a legitimate discussion of strategy, not only from the Zerg but the Protoss perspective, and it was refreshing to hear. I switched to random because I realized that the easiest way to win games was just to get 3 bases, fend off aggression, upgrade, and then 1a when I have some void rays and colossus. It was too easy to fall into that trap, and it was boring, and worse, it's producing what are going to be some really, really bad Protoss players if Bliz ever does drop the nerfhammer on that core strategy. The entire discussion just felt very grown up and well thought-out. + Show Spoiler +And as always, Tyler + Day9 = galactic thoughthammer.
NASL QQ
+ Show Spoiler +I really thought the community would be more supportive of the NASL. This is not just some moneyed corporation saying "ok guys, we'll take it from here. Esports will now happen, everyone just sit back and watch." This is a homegrown league, for whose welfare and growth we ourselves are responsible. To say "I paid for this, and am therefore entitled to a flawless experience" implies that we are not a community so much as a group of people consuming a product, and that genuinely bothers me. The people in charge of this league are players and casters, people that we know, who we can PM and who will respond to us with honesty (and the occasional <3) sticking their necks out to try and do something great. We are buying something from them, but so doing we understand that we are not so much purchasing a product as supporting the growth of our community. That we would sit here, less than a year outside of a time when a couple of $500 tourneys outside of Korea was considered to be INCREDIBLE, and suddenly declare ourselves entitled to nothing but a flawless product for the INSANELY low price of $25, strikes me as outright absurdity. To add on to that, the NASL has a very small production staff, and I assume that this is budget-constrained. To say that "they're whining about being understaffed why don't they just add more people they're so stupid," is itself stupidity. It is not unrealistic to hold the NASL to a high standard. It is unrealistic to hold them to a high standard and then to be shocked, and indeed offended, when they experience the growing pains of such an ambitious undertaking. I understand that if nobody said anything about the errors that have occurred up to this point, we would be doing ourselves and the NASL a disservice, but the errors have been pointed out. Over and over and over again. Declaring "THIS LEAGUE IS AWFUL, I want my money back, you guys are stupid," and posting a million comparisons of the NASL to everything that is wrong and bad in the world is a similar disservice. Can we please be a little more patient as a community? Please? Inc and co. are working their butts off to make this as great as it can be, and they're doing a great job, and they're delivering us some freaking amazing games. + Show Spoiler +But I still T____T for Tyler on Crevasse.
tl;dr: Protoss players, let's stop being so boring or the nerfhammer is going to end our tourney runs; we should all stop acting so entitled with regards to the NASL.
|
On April 21 2011 05:51 lxanderl wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2011 05:40 Fries wrote:
I think all arguments should be had using food analogies, by the way. Yes. You are delicious.
Thank you, good fellow. And you are delightful as a bag of candy with the aroma of a freshly baked pie.
|
On April 21 2011 06:08 Duravi wrote:
It is also kind of stupid for Incontrol to respond to JP with, "ask the editors". Incontrol whether he likes it or not is the mouth piece of NASL, it is his job to ask the editors and relay their response (or he can decide not to and give no comment) to us or JP. He should not be telling us to ask the editors, that is his job not ours.
I in no way am 100% sure of this, but I don't believe he is the boss of the editors.
|
On April 21 2011 04:24 -Frog- wrote:
Oh god the arm chair generals are out in full force.
hahaha-
|
On April 21 2011 04:24 -Frog- wrote:
Oh god the arm chair generals are out in full force.
We play sc2; we're all arm chair generals here 
(maybe that's the problem)
|
On April 21 2011 06:08 Kolvacs wrote:
It's funny listening to the Podcast, saying how there will be pages of hate and people yelling and such, then you load this page and that's pretty much all there is XD.
Today was a very good episode. That is probably why. They actually talked about state of the game in a very good manner. Day9 and Tyler and Incontrol weren't trolling IdrA and IdrA weren't being too "biased". It was like an adult conversation which is very nice for that segment of the show.
And JP actually asked the questions about NASL that a lot of people wanted to hear asked instead of holding back so i think that really satisfied a lot of people. The pillars don't have the obligation to satisfy anyone of course but it so happens that they did this time and that's why the thread has been pretty civil.
Actually everyone is probably hella scared of the pillars now especially JP after hearing the brutal things they did when they were raging. Better not anger them this week =D
|
It was good to hear the criticism on Cruncher for his TSL games - those were fairly silly, near ridiculous games.
|
On April 21 2011 03:54 iNcontroL wrote:
lol Are you laughing out loud or is that a head throwing his arms in the air out of frustration?
Both would be understandable, really. 
That said, I can only reiterate the format change I proposed from the very beginning. 10 divisions á 5 people, top player advances, same format from there.
Same amount of games, but every game matters a bit more.
|
What is actually wrong with the NASL? The only really bad thing I've seen was the editing error that led to the 3rd game of Painuser v Cloud before 1 & 2. Other than that...what? The lag issues have disappeared for me, there's a whole thread on how to reduce it if you still have it. Walkovers? Hardly their fault and handled pretty well imo (with possible exception of Naniwa).
So what? Everyone's acting like it's a trainwreck, well I must be watching a different league. The one I'm watching has quality games, knowledgeable casters and at the very least decent production values.
|
|
|
8751 Posts
On April 21 2011 05:56 AndAgain wrote:
How would one define "outplaying"?
If you took a test with 100 questions, all of about the same difficulty, and you got 90 of them correct, you would probably say you did better than the guy who got 80 of them correct.
But let's say the test is scored in a weird way. 1 of the questions determines 95% of the score and the other 99 questions determine the remaining 5% of the score. You got that one question wrong and the other guy got that one question right. So he scored higher than you -- he won.
That is the basic idea of what is going on when people say the loser played better, or outplayed the winner.
I refused to say whether or not I thought Mondragon outplayed Cruncher. Without attempting to answer the question of who played better, I just wanted to say that what Cruncher did to win the Shakuras game was not being fully appreciated by the viewers.
|
Tyler, a followup question with regard to your hotkey changes:
Coming from a background in WoW, where hotkeys were a huge part of playing well, my understanding of hotkey optimization is based on the idea of minimizing "travel" distance/time. In wow, however, this was mostly very easy to understand - you had your movement keys, which were almost always a wasd shaped grouping, and you arranged your hotkeys around that grouping such that your most important hotkeys were the easiest to hit and closest. In essence, you optimized the layout around a central grouping of "absolute importance" keys.
In SC2, I am struggling to determine what the "absolute importance" keys are - there's no movement keys, not really, and a lot of the important sequences (for Protoss, at least) don't suggest a certain position.
When you changed your setup, how did you think about it? Was it an on-the-fly "this would be good" chain or did you start from a point like "I want X to be bound to Y" and worked out from that?
|
Love state of the game. Keep it up!
|
When there was the question about each race have an innovative leader or something along that lines and I think incontrol(?) said zerg and terran don't have one but we protoss have many leaders and we are driving the race forwards. I was just curious who those leaders are, no examples were really given as to the innovative protoss players
|
On April 21 2011 06:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote:If you took a test with 100 questions, all of about the same difficulty, and you got 90 of them correct, you would probably say you did better than the guy who got 80 of them correct. But let's say the test is scored in a weird way. 1 of the questions determines 95% of the score and the other 99 questions determine the remaining 5% of the score. You got that one question wrong and the other guy got that one question right. So he scored higher than you -- he won. That is the basic idea of what is going on when people say the loser played better, or outplayed the winner. I refused to say whether or not I thought Mondragon outplayed Cruncher. Without attempting to answer the question of who played better, I just wanted to say that what Cruncher did to win the Shakuras game was not being fully appreciated by the viewers.
Isn't this just a feeling though? Maybe that 1 question is a really important question and the other 99 questions are of trivial importance. And how do you determine importance - other than which answers to the questions will help you pass the test? Sure, in a real life situation, you can say that most questions on a test are meaningful and have some innate value to knowing. But in starcraft - can you say certain skills are more meaningful than others based on something other than what wins the game for you? This is something I struggle with when trying to assess who "outplayed" who, other than just going based on the result of the match.
Edit: And remember this is a game of hidden information, but we are not completely clueless about the scoring rubric in starcraft. We know in a vague sense what will win us and lose us games.
|
On April 21 2011 06:49 Liquid`Tyler wrote:If you took a test with 100 questions, all of about the same difficulty, and you got 90 of them correct, you would probably say you did better than the guy who got 80 of them correct. But let's say the test is scored in a weird way. 1 of the questions determines 95% of the score and the other 99 questions determine the remaining 5% of the score. You got that one question wrong and the other guy got that one question right. So he scored higher than you -- he won. That is the basic idea of what is going on when people say the loser played better, or outplayed the winner. I refused to say whether or not I thought Mondragon outplayed Cruncher. Without attempting to answer the question of who played better, I just wanted to say that what Cruncher did to win the Shakuras game was not being fully appreciated by the viewers.
well imho people look at this the wrong way.
The winner obviously played better than the opponent (it would be better to say did less wrong decisions). It doesn't matter if it is cheese, all-in or what ever.
i will make an analogy with Street Fighter, let say you have superb execution and reliably use 100 Hit Combos. But if you as player suck in decision making (playing footsies, mindgames) you will never get a successful player.
And in that regard SC2 is very similar too SF4
you can't seperate Mechanics, Game Sense and Decision Making. And say the one with the better mechanics is the better player, mechanics obviously are one part of becoming a great player but not everything. In the end Execution doesn't win you games, decisions in a games do.
If you lack proper decisionmaking (reaktionary gameplay) you will lose in the long run more often than not.
if there are some tactics that are obviously alittle easier to use than to defend using them is smart.
A skilled player has to use the tools the game gives him to the fullest potential.
If there is an OP Strategy obviously using it is smart and not bad at all.
(if something is OP blizzard will fix sooner or later, but that is not your decision to make; people are way to demanding on patches to balance things out than to try everything they can to deal with it)
i.e.
A very big part of SF4 is not playing predicable, so your opponent can't predict (mind read) what you will do and punish it. And SC2 is the same.
That also imho where many Zergs lack, their standard Macrogameplay is way to predicable.
While Aggressiv Zergs may have worse economy, they gain a huge momentum in the game to to unpredicable things which can throw your opponent off or limit their options. (i.e. techheavy greedy play)
If Zerg would develop some nasty midgame timing pushes, when Deathball Strategy are weakest, playing such DB-Strategy wouldn't be so smart at all.
In my eyes (fast) Deathball Strategys are pure Metagame builds and far from safe.
Idra vs. Cruncher is a perfect example
G1 Idra stays passive and macros perfectly (for the viewer) but the decision to let your opponent get the Deathball is just plain bad)
while G2 showed, that Deathball Strategies in general can easily be stopped by propery decision making. (which is also why i don't think they overpowered)
Overpowered in my eyes is something, that i know will coming, and i can't still deal with it even with best decision making.
Good examples for that are obviously:
the MS Vortex nerf
the reaper nerf
the barracks/depot nerf
the scv ai repair change
but as we see blizzard deals with those.
|
Mondragon's first showing in SC2 was very impressive. I hope he continues to participate in tournaments so he can develop his skills. He only started playing SC2 once he got the TSL3 invite so he's very, very inexperienced compared to other top players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3dhF9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jlW6d.png)
