|
On May 04 2011 13:45 DminusTerran wrote:
I'm just confused by Idra's confusion about Zergs lack of early game scouting it's not like it was any different in starcraft 1 either. He just played terran(hint strongest race) then so it was fine. I do agree that Day[9] not being able to present a counterpoint made him look a little foolish though.
It was extremely different in SC1, thanks to the possibility of defending an attack that's scouted only after it moves out w/30-35 second Sunken Colonies. If Spines finished in 35 or even 40 seconds this game would be amazingly different
|
On May 04 2011 13:44 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2011 13:40 theqat wrote:On May 04 2011 13:39 Ribbon wrote:On May 04 2011 13:37 Killerkrack wrote:
Day9 got absolutely destroyed. He literally didn't bring up one counter point to what Idra was saying besides saying "well I just don't agree" in between random grunts. Idra says we wants a build that's safe against everything. Day[9] says Spanishiwa. Idra says it doesn't beat super-greedy builds. Idra wants Zerg to be able to hard-counter EVERYTHING. Nnnnnnnnnope, actually he more or less explicitly says that he wants to either be able to scout or to be able to reasonably expect to defend a given build that isn't scouted 'til it moves out. And he admitted the Spanishiwa build does that second thing...didn't he? No; that build lets the other player econ even harder than the Zerg and then the Zerg loses. The other races are scared to econ that hard for some reason, in spite of having super-reliable scouting of Z and knowing they won't even have a damn gas unit 'til 50+ food
Here's the thing: Zerg can scout those greedy builds with overlords (versus Terran, since the marine count is fairly low) and lings (versus Protoss) and respond appropriately, taking an early gas or another expansion. You're not forced to not take gas until 50 food if you see a 14 CC or 14 nexus...
|
On May 04 2011 13:42 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:40 dtz wrote:
or you can always play like julyzerg and pay no heed to what opponent does. but i think philosophically, idra does not like that. Idra asked for a def build and Day9 gave him one. However it isn't good vs greedy builds. Idra wants a build that can beat everything. Doesn't exist. Shouldn't exist.
He doesn't want a build that beats everything.... Stop twisting his words people... He said that if Zerg can't scout an opponents strategy then they need a build that can reasonably prepare for anything. He backs this argument with the fact that Zerg's defensive structures build way too slowly to be used in reaction which is the only thing zerg can do now...
I just wish Machine woulda chimed in on that argument.
|
On May 04 2011 13:42 Axel.Bowex wrote:20K!!!
damn you got perfect 20k
|
LOL
the Gracken immediately stops whining about balance at 20k viewers
long macro strategy to aggressively abuse Day9's multitasking with mass balance whine in order to gain advantage in the late-game via free drinks? IdrA is a genius
|
On May 04 2011 13:43 Cartel wrote:
Day9 had nothing to bring to the conversation, and in my opinion is totally wrong about his ideas that ALL GAMES ARE BALANCED no matter what, simply because we havent discovered it yet in meta game.
So let me give Day9 and example. What if Zerglings did 50 dmg. Would each race find a way to make the overall game balanced? Would it just take time? Of course its not balanced, and should be fixed. But Day9 would think its balanced we just haven't figured it out yet.
day9 WOULD think that is balanced, and thats why I find his argument extremely silly
The game would boil down to ZvZ all zergling 6pool micro, which IS balanced inherently. Not balance between races, but balance in the game as a whole (which he stated is balance; that a race may disappear)
However, the problem is that that is not what greg was arguing at all; he was arguing balance between races, and day9 twisted that into balance in the game as a whole
dunno it was a bit silly
|
|
|
Idra venting and owning day9 is just priceless.
i do understand day9 however - he cant openly admit imbalance in the game for many reasons. I've heard him many times saying mass reapers was bullshit vs zerg but ONLY after the they changed it in a patch.
|
kk idra + incontrol vs tyler coming up soon because of the korea lag discussion.
eg master heated debate incoming.
|
"The results should not be taken seriously at all" Idra on koreans playing/lagging in North American tournaments
|
Thank you Idra for calling it out saying no korean games on NASL or TSL should be taken seriously, because of the lag issue. I could not believe when people were saying that the lag didnt matter.
|
On May 04 2011 13:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:42 On_Slaught wrote:On May 04 2011 13:40 dtz wrote:
or you can always play like julyzerg and pay no heed to what opponent does. but i think philosophically, idra does not like that. Idra asked for a def build and Day9 gave him one. However it isn't good vs greedy builds. Idra wants a build that can beat everything. Doesn't exist. Shouldn't exist. No, he said that Zerg needed a race that was safe against all early pressure, if Zerg couldn't scout to figure out what pressure was coming. Zerg either needs someway to figure out what is coming, or they need a build that can stop any pressure.
This pretty much ends the argument.
IdrA points out the mechanical flaws of playing Zerg at top play.
#1 Denial of Scouting
#2 No (Wall-In)'esque build that denies aggression of other races... the way a wall in would for zerg.
P.S I'm sure Nick won't be getting good vibes from Sean anytime soon.
He's saying there HAS to be one of either.. Anything else is just flipping coins and you might as well have Esports be a literal Rock/Paper/Scissors competition.
|
In every competitive game that develops there will be periods of domination and some races will look absolutely awful. It's disappointing to see top players claim imbalance so early into a game's life and ignore all the BW history :/
|
On May 04 2011 13:46 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:41 BronzeKnee wrote:
He states that the early game is too risky for Zerg, because they are the defensive race, and they cannot scout and do not have a standard safe build that is safe against everything.
Thus, they can lose to something randomly, regardless of skill. That is a bad game mechanic.
Tyler had a good rebuttal, whereas Day[9] did not, he stated that Protoss takes risks and does a build that might lose to X but are safe against Y, Z and W, and the Protoss just hopes Zerg doesn't do X, and it often pays off, since Zerg only does X a small amount of the time (often doing Y, Z or W).
Idra agreed, and said that was a bad game mechanic too, because it introduces random chance, like rock-paper-scissors. Tyler agreed.
So in the end, Tyler and Idra agree that the game is mechanically bad, because of the randomness.
That sums up the arguement. I love logical arguements. pretty much this, I think the debate got too heated though. I dont want to see some day9/idra feud because the tension was a little too thick imo.
Makes me upset though when people state that Idra wants a build that beats everything, and he doesn't. He wants to be able to scout, or to be able to do some build that is safe against anything.
And I think Protoss has a build that does this, if you go 3 gate Robo vs Terran, you should hold any early aggression, Banshee, Thor, Hellion, MM, whatever. Zerg doesn't have this.
|
Tyler is right about the quake affecting internet latency in this region. I've definitely noticed differences playing from here.
|
Day9 was just using the wrong terminology. He was saying that any system setup with a set of rules or axioms and an objective has an optimal set of steps to take for the best possible solution.
If zerglings did 100 dmg a swing, the optimal strategy would be:
1) Play Zerg
2) Create a build that optimizes the utilization of zerglings
3) Practice your control with those zerglings
4) Win
The reason he used tic tac toe was because the optimal solution is not to play at all. I'm sure you've heard that, because any person that knows the game knows that he can't lose which removes the entire point of playing.
I still think he was ultimately wrong and IdrA knows what he's talking about, but he did make one decent argument in the rest of his comments.
|
On May 04 2011 13:43 Cartel wrote:
Day9 had nothing to bring to the conversation, and in my opinion is totally wrong about his ideas that ALL GAMES ARE BALANCED no matter what, simply because we havent discovered it yet in meta game.
So let me give Day9 and example. What if Zerglings did 50 dmg. Would each race find a way to make the overall game balanced? Would it just take time? Of course its not balanced, and should be fixed. But Day9 would think its balanced we just haven't figured it out yet.
That's clearly because you didn't grasp his philosophical definition of balance. In your example, the game would be balanced with everyone playing zerg and everyone making only zerglings. That doesn't make it a good game, or one that's terribly interesting, but the metagame would be balanced. His point is that there is an optimal solution, or an optimal set of solutions, and at some point the metagame will coalesce around those solutions, and skill will then be the only differentiater.
Edit:
A lot of people seem to think that Idra having questions and Day9 not having answers somehow means Idra's right. That's not the case at all. We have 2 options: either the game is imbalanced, or it is relatively balanced and under-unexplored. Zerg having issues now doesn't prove either unless Idra / others believe that the game has reached an end-state. It doesn't sound like there's agreement on that.
Idra's basic approach is that if there's a problem that hasn't been solved, then there's no solution. In this case, he may be right, he may be wrong. Day9 not knowing the solution doesn't invalidate either possibility.
|
On May 04 2011 13:43 Cartel wrote:
Day9 had nothing to bring to the conversation, and in my opinion is totally wrong about his ideas that ALL GAMES ARE BALANCED no matter what, simply because we havent discovered it yet in meta game.
So let me give Day9 and example. What if Zerglings did 50 dmg. Would each race find a way to make the overall game balanced? Would it just take time? Of course its not balanced, and should be fixed. But Day9 would think its balanced we just haven't figured it out yet.
Day[9] isn't stating that all games (read: SC2) are completely balanced. If you were listening to his points earlier, he acknowledged that there might well be some imbalance, and I'm sure those of us that listened to IdrA's examples and have our own experiences can agree.
But Day[9] IS stating that it's rather useless to discuss about them, especially when in an emotional state. IdrA's always been somewhat of an emotional player, and since he has the results and skill to back that up, I say more power to him. But when he lets his emotions seep into discussions like this, it really establishes nothing. We get to see his opinion (which most of us already knew) and nothing more. Day[9] is more of a proponent of having people try to figure out solutions to the perceived imbalance problems while the Blizzard guys analyze and decide what does and doesn't need to be fixed. This seems to be the much more logical route when you realize that a podcast like SotG isn't a successful vehicle for this sort of discussion at all; if these discussions are to take place, they're to take place somewhere more official if we want them to make any difference. THAT's what Day[9] is stating.
|
On May 04 2011 13:46 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:41 Whole wrote:On May 04 2011 13:39 Ribbon wrote:On May 04 2011 13:37 Killerkrack wrote:
Day9 got absolutely destroyed. He literally didn't bring up one counter point to what Idra was saying besides saying "well I just don't agree" in between random grunts. Idra says we wants a build that's safe against everything. Day[9] says Spanishiwa. Idra says it doesn't beat super-greedy builds. Idra wants Zerg to be able to hard-counter EVERYTHING. Since when were economical builds super greedy? There's a build that lets Idra hatch-first, drone really hard, and be safe against all early aggression. If that build beat an FE as well, it would be FUCKING LUDICROUS. Imagine if Zerg had a built that was safe against everything one-base, economical, and you couldn't expand against. That's what Idra's asking for. He doesn't want to be "safe", he wants to be able to win every game against a foreigner because "I shouldn't be losing to these people".
No, he wants to win a game that he plays better than his opponent, not that he guessed right what he was doing
|
On May 04 2011 13:40 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:39 Ribbon wrote:On May 04 2011 13:37 Killerkrack wrote:
Day9 got absolutely destroyed. He literally didn't bring up one counter point to what Idra was saying besides saying "well I just don't agree" in between random grunts. Idra says we wants a build that's safe against everything. Day[9] says Spanishiwa. Idra says it doesn't beat super-greedy builds. Idra wants Zerg to be able to hard-counter EVERYTHING. Nnnnnnnnnope, actually he more or less explicitly says that he wants to either be able to scout or to be able to reasonably expect to defend a given build that isn't scouted 'til it moves out.
He's absolutely right, idra want zergs to have a build that is safe against everything AND be abe to be on equal footing economically.
I can make the absolut same statement about PvT from a protoss point.
If i don't go 1 gate expand against a Terran that goes 1 rax cc, i'm behind.
I have the option to go 1 gate 1 robo and send an observer to scout and be safe.
But i traded safety against economy.
If i go 1 gate expand against terran, i cant scout properly what he's doing.
He could go 2 rax and i die / have to sacrifice the expansion and be behind.
I could die to a cloaked banshee if i don't go a robo fast enough.
But if i go a fast robo to deal with a possible cloaked banshee, i die to a blue flame drop.
And i have absolut NO chance to see what he is doing.
In exchange i cant really punish him for going 1 rax cc, he can has the oc in his base and double mule and get a 1.2k income off of 1 base.
The only thing i can do is use a heavy all-in build like proxy stargate or a 4 gate.
Yet they don't pay off 100%.
Zerg has the same options to be safe, like the spanishiwa style or others that
set the economy back.
You can't have anything idra.
Idra has a problem with the design of the game, that risky styles pay off so fucking hard, and that there are so many situations where you have to guess, and if you guess wrong you die / are hard behind and through macro mechanics it's even more drastic.
That's nothing imbalance between the races.
Maybe Zerg has sometimes a tougher time facing those situation, but there are also
situations were zerg benefit from those. Where zergs are 15+ drones ahead in the early and are
so fucking far ahead that it's nearly impossible to catch up if you don't camp to 200/200.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/f/832/20k.png/)
