|
On May 04 2011 13:51 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:50 Baltor wrote: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. It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic.
I'm not attempting to refute IdrA's points, at all. In fact, I acknowledged that there may be some sort of an imbalance - as a Terran player, I can't say for certain. I was simply arguing with the guy that said that Day[9] believes "ALL GAMES ARE BALANCED" when in fact, that's not the case.
Your point about right being right and wrong being wrong is true. However, let me ask you something - what does the game benefit from this discussion? What do we benefit from this discussion, as lesser-skilled players? We get opinions, and we take sides, but the game does not change. The ONLY way this discussion will cause the game to change is if some Blizzard employees are listening to this SotG, or any balance discussion at all on the internet, and decide to change it on that basis. Blizzard won't do that. They know that empirical, nonbiased evidence (or as nonbiased as possible) must be gathered in order to propose game changes. Such discussions don't offer this.
|
What I'm reading is that zerg have a build that stops one base agression just fine, but that can be "countered" by a fast expansion from the opponent.
Why not do the one-base-aggression killer build and change what you are doing if you see a fast expansion from the opponent? I think it's complete bullshit to say zerg can't scout a fast expansion.
|
Oh god why did I open this thread........... holy shit lol
|
On May 04 2011 13:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:51 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 04 2011 13:50 Baltor wrote: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. It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic. Day9 says "go spaniwa build b/c its safe vs possible abuse." Idra says it isn't good vs FE but admits its good defensivly. Idra must want a build that can be good defensivly and offensively. That's fair right?
he wants a way too be able too scout and be able too react in a decent time or a build that makes you safe vs all. In bw if terran did that marine/medic push and you had 2 sunkens down you could morph them as soon as they move out once you see it, and they will finish in time. If you see something coming you should be able too prepare in a decent time and not do it blindly.
An example of this in sc2 would be terran. They have marines patrolling the sides. If a zerg tries too go in anyway, the terran grabs his 3-4 marines and kills the overlord and it will not see anything unless the terran put his tech in a retarded spot.
So here's the problem: Is he expanding? Is he doing banshee? cloak? 2 port? blue flame hellions?. They all need a different reaction. If he expands and you prepare for banshee your behind economically, if you think he's expanding and you drone a little bit you die.
If you prepare for banshee but he's expanding well your behind economically. That is the problem he is talking about as its completely "luck" based on your reaction too him blocking your overlord from going in. That is not how this game should be, you should not have too guess what build he's doing and either die or be behind economically if you guess wrong.
|
I never understood when IdrA states a flaw, one of the retorts is "well back in brood war <go off on some past trial and tribulation you went through>"
This isn't Brood War, stop bringing up how bad/hard another game was compared to this and that we should be somewhat grateful or lucky we "got it this good" and that we should settle for playing risky aka flipping coins, if there's a solution or discussion about SC2, use SC2 and not brood war analogy.
|
On May 04 2011 13:57 drox22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:54 On_Slaught wrote:On May 04 2011 13:51 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 04 2011 13:50 Baltor wrote: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. It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic. Day9 says "go spaniwa build b/c its safe vs possible abuse." Idra says it isn't good vs FE but admits its good defensivly. Idra must want a build that can be good defensivly and offensively. That's fair right? This is the problem with idra he just wants a build that is safe against everything T or P can do, which is just bullshit. T and P should be rewarded for taking risks if Z doesn't take a risk then he deserves to lose. Idra is seriously stupid.
He wants either:
1 - A build that is perfectly safe and doesn't get you behind going into the macro game;
2 - A way to scout and respond correctly to what your opponent is doing and go into the macro game with an advantage or even.
Sounds pretty fair to me.
|
On May 04 2011 13:58 rO_Or wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:50 Ribbon wrote:On May 04 2011 13:48 rO_Or wrote: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. 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. And when it's pointed out that there is one, he says it can't punish an FE enough. Which is completely true. If zergs all start using Spanishiwa's build to be safe from the various aggressive attacks, their opponents will quickly adapt and leave the Zergs behind yet again. Therefore, he was saying Spanishiwa's build has a huge weakness if the opponent scouts it and decides to just macro up heavily.
Then it comes down to build wars, which is exactly how it is in BW and how it should be here.
What is the alternative? That he has a build that is safe AND can stop FE? No. You don't fucking do spanis build EVERY time. You have the optino. You can be safe. You can be aggressive.
|
Question:
What are your takes on tiny 1v1 maps? Does that play towards race imbalance. Like IdrA said, there are no maps with 50 second rush distance, and spine takes 50 seconds.
|
On May 04 2011 13:55 MechKing wrote:
Lol I have no idea if Greg is trolling, but it's ridiculous how he thinks NOBODY is good unless they play Zerg. Seriously, Naniwa isn't good? How about Kas, or Mvp? They're not good because they don't play the "hardest race", right?
his aragument was about builds that does not require high level of skill to execute like 4 gate and 1-1-1 build, builds that are able to defeat high level zerg without much skill, unlike zerg that dosnt have all porpuse safe build and to survive and you need to be at a very high skill level and to play nearly perfectly. (sry for bad english)
|
Can someone link me to this "controversial thread" please?
|
Can anyone link me to the thread they are talking about?
Thanks
|
God damn a lot of you are blind. Idra does not want "a build" that works against everything--he wants his race to have the potential to defend all the ridiculous risky shit P/T can do without having to rely on the other player failing to deny scouting.
It's not "a build" that's the problem--it's that right now, even if someone were playing Zerg PERFECTLY, they would lose constantly to un-scoutable all-ins.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 04 2011 13:57 drox22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:54 On_Slaught wrote:On May 04 2011 13:51 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 04 2011 13:50 Baltor wrote: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. It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic. Day9 says "go spaniwa build b/c its safe vs possible abuse." Idra says it isn't good vs FE but admits its good defensivly. Idra must want a build that can be good defensivly and offensively. That's fair right? This is the problem with idra he just wants a build that is safe against everything T or P can do, which is just bullshit. T and P should be rewarded for taking risks if Z doesn't take a risk then he deserves to lose. Idra is seriously stupid.
why are you guys so incompetent in understanding what he is saying?
Going spanishwa is BLIND. If they go early aggression, good for you. If they don't, bad for you. The problem is not that there is a flaw to the build, the issue is that whether the build works or not is out of his hands.
Rock-paper-scissors is perfectly balanced, and also BAD GAME DESIGN to go for. He wants to be able to play the game based on information, not GUESSING. If there was a 50% chance for Z to win or for T to win immediately in starting a game, its perfectly balanced. Bad game design. Zerg is bad game design because it depends on guessing, which takes player skill 100% out of the equation
|
On May 04 2011 14:01 Jotoco wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:57 drox22 wrote:On May 04 2011 13:54 On_Slaught wrote:On May 04 2011 13:51 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 04 2011 13:50 Baltor wrote: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. It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic. Day9 says "go spaniwa build b/c its safe vs possible abuse." Idra says it isn't good vs FE but admits its good defensivly. Idra must want a build that can be good defensivly and offensively. That's fair right? This is the problem with idra he just wants a build that is safe against everything T or P can do, which is just bullshit. T and P should be rewarded for taking risks if Z doesn't take a risk then he deserves to lose. Idra is seriously stupid. 2 - A way to scout and respond correctly to what your opponent is doing and go into the macro game with an advantage or even.
No that's not.
If the opponent goes for a risky economy build, and you go for a safe build, he should be ahead.
If he goes for a risky economy build, and you go for a risky aggressive build, he died and you are ahead / win.
That's how it should be.
|
rubbing hand in excitement ^^
|
|
|
On May 04 2011 13:58 Harem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:52 VENDIZ wrote:On May 04 2011 13:46 theqat wrote:On May 04 2011 13:44 Daralii wrote:On May 04 2011 13:43 Ganjamaster wrote:
I cant wait to hear a whole week of IdrA commentary "Fuck this guy, fuck protoss" "Fuck this guy, fuck terran" "Fuck this guy, such a retarded player" "Fuck this game, Blizz can't balance worth fucking shit" Repeat for a week Not what happens at all. If you had watched his stream when he commentated a few months ago, you'd know that. Last time I checked his stream, he was busy typing how shit drewbie was to his chat.. along with shreeks of terran imbalance and what not.. (i.ex; "he plays like THAT and still loses, he's shit") ..it gets old ....That is not even close to what happens when he commentates. See http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188490 for what will happen. Him "commentating" is him going through the strategical analysis of games that he played, why he does certain things etc.
I also recall him being on "Mr. Bitter's 12 weeks with the pros" playing ZvP versus iNcontroL, he called out loud what he needed to do in order to respond and so forth - didn't do much of what he said zergs should do.. lost to a protoss deathball without having touched iNcontroL for 12 minutes.. muttered a sigh about protoss "being protoss" and sighed..
If that hadn't been his own teammate he would've verbally raped his opponent
|
On May 04 2011 14:01 Jotoco wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:57 drox22 wrote:On May 04 2011 13:54 On_Slaught wrote:On May 04 2011 13:51 BronzeKnee wrote:On May 04 2011 13:50 Baltor wrote: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. It doesn't matter who says or does it, or where it happens, right is right and wrong is wrong.Doesn't matter if Idra is emotional, or if it is discussed in SotG. His arguements were valid and solid. Disagree? Then refute him with logic. Day9 says "go spaniwa build b/c its safe vs possible abuse." Idra says it isn't good vs FE but admits its good defensivly. Idra must want a build that can be good defensivly and offensively. That's fair right? This is the problem with idra he just wants a build that is safe against everything T or P can do, which is just bullshit. T and P should be rewarded for taking risks if Z doesn't take a risk then he deserves to lose. Idra is seriously stupid. He wants either: 1 - A build that is perfectly safe and doesn't get you behind going into the macro game;
How is a build that automatically let's you hold off any sort of all in and still keeps you on a even level economically fair? That would completely break the game. You can't die early game, you don't fall behind in economy either if your opponent fast expands? How can you lose then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
