Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 823

On April 21 2011 11:11 On_Slaught wrote:
Was MSL grp D discussed, or at least mentioned, in ep 34?

On April 21 2011 10:55 dacthehork wrote:
Hilarious to see incontrol and nony defending protoss with as much vigor as possible while denying what is pretty obvious to everyone else.

Forcefields
Colossus (moving siege tanks)

....

On April 21 2011 07:31 freetgy wrote:


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.

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.

On April 21 2011 12:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

hey, colossus have way more hp than siege tanks. that's not a fair comparison

On April 21 2011 15:52 magha wrote:
What was the series/movie called they talked about at the start of the show?

On April 21 2011 12:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

hey, colossus have way more hp than siege tanks. that's not a fair comparison

On April 21 2011 16:04 Tabbris wrote:

Come on guys. When Protoss was doing horrible in Gsl (worst than even Z) Jp asked Nony and Incontrol multiple times about the state of protoss. Even when people were thinking protoss was underpowered because of the low gsl representation they said that the Korean protoss were just making bad mistakes and that they werent underpowered.

Nony was also like this in BW. When protoss was Struggling vs zerg in Bw and talk about zvp imbalance was being tossed around Nony just said. Zvp can be tough but its not imbalanced.

If you think Tyler and Incontrol are defending there races because they want/like to be overpowered than your and idiot

On April 21 2011 11:14 relyt wrote:

I'm 99% sure they didn't talk about it unfortunately.

On April 21 2011 12:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

hey, colossus have way more hp than siege tanks. that's not a fair comparison

On April 21 2011 05:14 Defacer wrote:



I definitely think you have a point here ... at some point, nobody should be expected to accept an apology for a bad product that they paid for.

The thing is -- and this is me, personally -- I genuinely dont' think they're doing that bad a job. I mean, logistically, NO ONE has tried to do what they're doing, not even the GSL. They're trying to run a 50-man, Divisional tournament that is truly international (as opposed to players that can live and play in Korea).

And while there's definitely been some gaffes ... for the most part they're making it happen. Aside from the three no-shows, they've airing 4 hours of games, 5 days a week, hot-off-the-presses with little delay (particularly compared to MLG or most LAN tournaments, which should be easier to coordinate because the players are localized).

I think a lot of the criticism about the production values are valid. But the truth is, all I wanted to see was great players play in a tournament structure that rewarded the best players. While the production value of Dreamhack, GSL or MLG might be better, the actual design of the tournament doesn't reward the most consistent players.

So from my perspective, the NASL Tournament format inherently makes scheduling and editing errors more likely. However, it is also the primary reason I find the tournament appealing. It's a compromise I'm willing to make as customer, although I understand why other people wouldn't.


>Edited for shitty grammar.