|
incontrol did debate. tyler did philosophy. tylers winning this one...
|
Oh man the past 30+ minutes have been heated arguments. It's been pretty damn serious. 
But tasteless is on the cam! 
|
On May 04 2011 14:05 kirbynator wrote:
LOL TYLER WONT STOP That guy lasts almost as long as Stride Gums.
|
On May 04 2011 14:01 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 13:58 rO_Or wrote: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.
The alternative is that Zerg has a legitimate scouting option in the early game... so they don't have to blindly play a defensive build... I think you just don't understand what IdrA was saying.
|
On May 04 2011 14:05 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 14:03 Elefanto wrote:On May 04 2011 14:01 Jotoco wrote: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. But you should also be able to be rewarded for aggressively scouting so that you can adjust your build and potentially scrape back into the game by outplaying the other guy. That's how it should be. It needs to be based on skill, not build r/p/s As it is you cannot scout with Zerg during a critical part of the game--unless the other guy fails to deny your OL
You can do that as zerg.
You can poke the ramp, you see if the rax has a reactor / tech-lab.
You see if he has an expansion at his natural or not.
If he has no expansion at his natural, play safe, cut droning / spare larva until you get more intel.
|
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.
The meta game changing and developing is a good thing.
|
Jesus stop complaining about Tyler talking. If you want a good discussion everyone has to flesh out their thoughts completely.
|
On the little rant I really have to stress that I feel that the message Day9 tried to bring fourth is something that is severely missing right now. I am not sure he got it across as well as he could had but the bottom line of his argument is that yeah you can keep picking individual situations and scenarios and argue that one race is not favored in said scenario. But it is really hard without lots of data to say that this is an imbalance or not and that the reason it is not useful to discuss imbalance all the time is that discussing it over and over is not going to make anything any better.
And the whole "balance" mentality that has cursed sc2 since the beta I feel is to a large part IdrA's doing. There definitely is a huge problem in sc2 where a massive part of the community is so caught up on balance, you can't watch a stream or a tournament anymore without the comments being all about "<insert name of player who won who plays race x> won, thus <race x> is op." Then that player loses in the next game and the comments are "lol yeah, <race x> just lost so I wonder which race is really op".
This mentality is partly spawned I think from the larger community, this is what the general consensus is when this is discussed that it is a result of the game being young, and a lot of people coming over from wow or other games where balance discussions were much more core. But I also feel that one HUGE factor that no one really mentions is that the whole op thing really took off because Artosis and IdrA, two major personalities on the scene and two very visible and vocal personalities began the massive zerg is underpowered crusade. I won't argue that they were not right or anything like that, there has always been balance issues. But IdrA and not so much Artosis anymore but previously are very much fueling or legitimizing the idea that you should always go to balance just because they are so vocal about it. They are dumbing down the community by pushing this kind of thinking.
To complain about balance issues is one thing but when IdrA pretty much constantly declares that every player in the world that ever wins anything but is not playing zerg is essentially a bad player who did not deserve their win, and when IdrA goes on his rants about how he basically can't win against protoss or whatever. On their level it might be legitimate concerns but the way that those concerns are brought fourth are the seeds that raise a terrible sc2 community where people who lose even in masters league go to balance before anything else to justify their loss.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 04 2011 14:07 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 14:04 drox22 wrote:On May 04 2011 14:01 Jotoco wrote: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? That's not what he wants. He wants to either be able to scout or to potentially be able to defend things that you can't scout until they move out. Of course the latter should be difficult but right now it's impossible
You can though! Scout the front with lings, see what you can, and make inferences about it. If you see a barracks with a tech lab, that gives you a list of things that could be happening. Try sending in multiple overlords from different directions. You can cross things off the list based on what you see. It works against protoss too.
|
You cannot just win based off mechanical skill. This is foremost a strategy game. Risks and game sense are part of the game. It's what pushes Flash to the next level. You cannot open economically, be safe from any aggression, and be able to punish an fe from your opponent. That's just ridiculously broken.
|
|
|
why is tasteless so hot...
okay i love sotg when they talk about sc2. but now it feels like we are just watching drama develop between two parties.
|
On May 04 2011 14:10 rysecake wrote:
You cannot just win based off mechanical skill. This is foremost a strategy game. Risks and game sense are part of the game. It's what pushes Flash to the next level. You cannot open economically, be safe from any aggression, and be able to punish an fe from your opponent. That's just ridiculously broken.
Plenty of people would love to refute that this game is foremost a mechanical game
|
On May 04 2011 14:07 theqat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 14:04 drox22 wrote:On May 04 2011 14:01 Jotoco wrote: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? That's not what he wants. He wants to either be able to scout or to potentially be able to defend things that you can't scout until they move out. Of course the latter should be difficult but right now it's impossible
Terran and Protoss have exactly the same problem. Do you think that if a terran decides to go CC first he will be able to scout you anytime soon? If you then baneling bust him and he isn't super prepared for it with bunkers and a fast tech to tanks (for the sacrifice of a big army) he will just die.
Just check out the Jinro Morrow games, this problem isn't exclusive to zerg it's just what zerg players want to think but it's bullshit.
|
I think it's fair to say that EG totally won tonight.
IdrA > Day[9]
iNcontroL > Tyler
2-0, gg. Wow, so much drama tonight lol
|
On May 04 2011 14:11 Golgotha wrote:
why is tasteless so hot...
Haha, a question for the ages. 
|
Seem Incontrol is winning this one. :D
|
Best sotg ever.
Idra vs Day9
Incontrol vs Tyler
Go read the EG masters thread if you haven't to put this in context.
|
EG team is winning all the discussions today
|
this is too tense
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
