|
On May 04 2011 16:08 L3g3nd_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 15:56 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:51 L3g3nd_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:49 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:47 L3g3nd_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:42 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:39 L3g3nd_ wrote:
1. Speedlings arent going to tell you whats going on, you wont scout a 4gate or a starport or a stargate with speedlings, you cant get inside their base.
2. again, they are so slow that you will get denied by stalker/marine/sentry before seeing their tech path
3. overseers with speed come when its too late to prepare for a 4gate (and if you rush to them youre going to die because of the investment) they simply come too late for good early game scouting.
4. again, it wont scout inside their base, though its good for map control i agree, but still it wont scout inside their base.
5. yes, but again it wont be inside their base.
A good player can deny the zerg from knowning what they are doing inside their base. a terran could come out with a 7rax no gas build and could have completly denied a zergs scouting of it, while at the same time could have done a 1rax expand with an in base CC or a double starport build. you cant prepare for all of them! You're arguing a completely different point. Read what I was responding to. The guy was arguing that Zerg can't scout as well as Protoss and Terran. I'm sorry, but a Terran doing 7 rax can deny Protoss scouting as well as he can deny Zerg scouting. And while Terrans have scans, you can hide your buildings from scans just as you can hide them from overlords. It's the same story with scouting. The difference is that Idra believes that Zerg has to react perfectly whereas other races don't because Zerg is a reactive race. Protoss has observers and hallucination, and phnx. that is great for scouting, vs zerg hallicu is standard straight after warp gate. against terran an early robo build (such as what tyler loves) gets an obs in their base fairly early, before you need to make major decisions. and zerg is a reactive race...what idra "belives" is true Zerg needs to drone up when their opponent is macroing, and build units when they are doing pressure. With terran and protoss you are constantly building units and workers, as zerg you build drones until either about 70 or 80, or when your opponent is going to attack you. really then zerg scouting should be the best, not the worst. IdrA is 100% right and knows the game very well I, and others, have already addressed the hallucination point. And getting real phoenixes and observers are both "major" decisions. You don't just drop a robo and go back to 4 gating. what scouting do you need to do when youre 4gating lol If you are 4gating the onus is on the other player to adapt to the aggression. you dont need to scout when you 4gate. No shit? Well guess what, 4 gate is a coin flip. Because if you 4 gate against someone who is prepared against it you basically lose. It's no different than a Zerg roach ling all-in that fails and then they lose. Idra is pissed that he can be beaten by coin flips which is the whole reason for his rant against Day9 on SOTG. But as Tyler pointed out, it's not just Zerg who has to deal with coin flips. 3 gate expand isn't safe against many builds - Idra simply refuses to acknowledge it because every time Protoss loses he just calls the player bad. What you mean no shit? i had to state the obvious because whoever i was responding to didn't understand. It depends how you 4gate. if you simply build 4gates then attack, sure its a bit of a coin toss. but top level players dont think like that. they will play mind games on their opponent. a good example was cruncher vs naniwa in the TSL. CrunCher gas stealed NaNiwa, which would make NaNiwa think he wasn't 4gating and consequently not be prepared for it, the same kind of things can be done in other match ups. maybe sacrficie your 4 gate timing by not chrono boosting the cyber at all vs zerg, and then doing an all in when he isnt expecting it. or the fake expand builds we see going on. These kind of possibilites turn the 4gate away from a coin flip and more into a clever tactic. and what at your last point? a 3gate sentry expo is protoss's safe build against zerg, it can hold off any 1base all in or timing attack....
Lol what. I brought up robo after 4 gate to make a point about Protoss committing to a strategy before he is able to scout and you respond with "why of course you can't scout before you 4 gate!" and expect the conversation to proceed logically forward? You just proved my point. Protoss can't scout before he commits to a mid game strategy.
|
Okay this will be my last response of the night (unless I see a really "good" one soon after posting this)... because apparently people don't have anything to say to my reasonable responses (though I may have missed some when typing them).
On May 04 2011 16:02 rotegirte wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 15:51 Sephimos wrote:Also, people don't get to insert their pet meaning into Colbi's statement. "We invited Liquid, they chose not to attend" is a completely neutral statement. If someone can't process that, it's their own issue. If someone can't process difference in wording evoking different connotations, it is an intellectual issue. Imagine a scenario: 1) two people A and B 2) an issue arises 3) both of them do their best but fail to resolve it Now a third party sees the outcome and asks: What happened? There is a huge difference in saying a) "We both did our best, but failed to resolve it." b) Person A: "Well I did everything I could.." Instead of Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 10:17 Colbi wrote:Liquid was invited, but chose not to participate.
Okay I will start here. I can only assume you are suggesting Colbi was going with option "B." If not... skip this section as I misunderstood.
Here is the thing with option B... he never took it. He never said "I did everything I could. Please quote the line above that Colbi said... and show me where he said that he did everything he could. You won't be able to find it. He said they were invited and that is it. He didn't say "Liquid was invited but refused to cooperate" or "Liquid was invited but would not accept no matter what we tried" he simply said "Liquid was invited."
I have said it multiple times in this thread, but I will say it again here. People are blowing a single sentence way out of proportion. You are reading way too far into it... regardless I will continue on.
let's say:
1) Liquid was invited, but certain issues couldn't be resolved.
2) Liquid was invited, but unfortunately certain issues couldn't be resolved.
3) Liquid was invited, but unfortunately certain issues couldn't be resolved. I am sure you will hear official word about their decision from the team themselves.
4) Liquid was invited, but issues regarding parts of their lineup playing from KR unfortunately couldn't be resolved.
5) Liquid was invited, but deemed themselves unable to compete due to two of their players being in KR.
As you can see, wording does make a difference in perception. Let it be clear, that playing the ball to TL is indeed considered fair and safe play in general PR business.
But in his role, Colbi should have had more sensitivity going about it. There is a difference in handing the ball and dropping it. Tyler didn't get mad because Colbi was "playing it safe" for EG. That is totally reasonable.
Colbi's response may have been sufficient for EG to be in the clear, but at the same time left TL with little to no graceful way to pick it up from there. At the very least, a sensible PR person should know the code of conduct between business partners.
How... is this true... WHATSOEVER?
No graceful way to pick it up? How about a TL member says...
"Yes that is true. We were invited, and we declined specifically due to server issues."
Is that not graceful? Is that malicious? No. It was very easy for TL to add more detail to their side of the story (this forum is 100% accessible to them) and simply explain it in a reasonable manner. How can you honestly say otherwise?
|
|
|
is there mp3 for the newest episode yet?
|
On May 04 2011 16:10 Ihpares wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:05 Namu wrote:On May 04 2011 16:00 Ihpares wrote:On May 04 2011 15:49 Raiznhell wrote:On May 04 2011 15:34 Essentia wrote:On May 04 2011 15:28 Dfgj wrote:On May 04 2011 15:21 Sephimos wrote:
I'm SO glad that IdrA called Day9 out on his asinine balance stance.
"Zerg have no way to scout".
"I don't know that I agree"
"So, how can they scout?"
"Uhhh...welll..."
I love Day9 but his trolling was really retarded and IdrA panned him tonight. Well that's the issue right there - Zerg has some difficulty getting perfect information, but what race doesn't early on - and IdrA translates every weakness into an incapability that breaks the race. He focuses way too much on X isn't fair, so Zerg is shit, and not on specifically looking at X - the most productive part of the discussion was where they brought up the comparison between spines and sunkens, with spines being too slow to offer a strong reactive option. I don't blame Day9 for going straight to trolling when the only response that would fulfill what IdrA asks the rest of the time is to solve the Zerg race on the spot. Don't think either side really brought up their points in the greatest way. uhh terran can scan extremely early and toss has hallucination and/or obs pretty quick. But terran and toss dont have to have as early as a scout as zerg since zerg is the most vulnerable early game. So how does it make sense that the race that relies the most on early game scouting has the worst scouting abilities till lair. I don't really understand why Zergs feel they are so incredibly reactive. Want to stop Air tech blindly. build ONE Spore Crawler near the minerals lines of your main and Nat. Terran have to do the same thing practically every time they face a Zerg because GUARANTEED there's gunna be either Mutas, burrowed Infestors or if the Zerg is weird burrowed Roaches. Practically everything I do is reactive to Zerg in TvZ. I 2 rax because he's gunna 14 hatch. I bunker up and wallin with a crap load of buildings because of Zergling runbys and Baneling busts. I build crap loads of Turrets so I don't lose all my SCVs to Mutas. I make Tanks because he's gunna have a crap load more units than me so i need some sort of splash. Like I don't get how Zerg is the "reactive race" when pretty much everything you do in SCII regardless of the races is going to be a reaction to the action of your opponent even if it's on offensive reaction like say trying to rush a fast expander. Besides Terran scans are never wasted that early on because we need the MULES just to keep up with the other races in the early game. We scout the same way a Zerg should be able to scout with a worker looking all over the map for hidden things and doing pokes at the front. by the time we actually scan for tech a Zerg should probably have an overlord in the opponents base. =/ And saying that the overlord can be killed is poitnless because a scan can equally be fooled and wasted. Overlord costs 100 mins, MULE costs 300. Going to address this point by point. Zerg is considered the reactive race because their build is based off of your build. Mutas will not likely come out if a Terran goes mass Marine/No Tank, for example. Not all Zergs 14 hatch, Bunkers are free. Well, they won't be soon, but for now, still free. Spore crawlers require, effectively, four larva to create (Two drones, two drones to replace those two on the mineral line). Four larva can't be frittered away earlygame. Workers can't get past a wallin. Zerg physically cannot wallin until they're spreading creep. Doing this with anything but an excess queen means losing four larva, which again, is a terrible idea. Overlords die to marines easily, and quickly. Oh, and they can be fooled just as easily as a scan, but scans can't be killed. You're guaranteed a large field of vision. This field requires more than four overlords to attain, costing more minerals and more importantly, more larva. Oh, and this is paid upfront as opposed to over a period of mining time. btw, bunkers aren't free, it takes scvs to build them which means loss of mining time not that it's important but it seems every zerg forgets about that  and I have no idea how a spore crawler takes 4 larva to create, unless you're including evo chamber as well... but that's like saying a turret takes 225 minerals + scvs not mining for the duration of building the ebay and turret. No, a turret costs 100 minerals + the mining time just for the turret. and zerg physically cannot wall in but once lings+queens are out all scouting by worker is cut off pretty. Not sure how you're equating 4 overlords sight to a scan. I'm not disagreeing entirely with what Idra was saying but your post just has a lot of wrong points... I was ignoring mining time as that could be taken out of all three races (Less so for Protoss, but I'll give them a break). Evo chamber that early in the game is just going to sit and be wasted, and thus should not be built UNLESS it's absolutely needed. By the time the EBay is actually needed (For muta harass), one should be out to start working on upgrades anyway as you're already in the mid-late game. Lings can be outrun before speed, and by the time speed is out, scan is available. The potential to scout is present. Scans radius is humongous, all I'm saying there. In order to get that coverage, you'd need 3-4 overlords.
Again, this is all just hypothetical, there are tons of early upgrade builds for zerg (you need a spore earliest at what, 7 minutes? Even if you're not doing an early upgrade, the opportunity cost of building it early does not exclude the building's use). I pointed out the mining time because you're going over the frivolous parts (like 4 drones, larvaes, etc) while ignoring those of the other races. Lings may be out run before speed, but trust me, no good zerg will let you scout with a worker once he has lings/queens out, you just hold the xelnaga towers and simply position your lings/queens properly to shut it off. And no, you don't need 3-4 overlords, more like two.
|
On May 04 2011 16:11 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 15:52 riboflavin wrote:On May 04 2011 15:40 VIB wrote:
- Idra was right about imbalance, but wasn't able to put his thoughts into words as well as he wanted
- Day9 is afraid to admit to himself that the game just might not be perfect
- Nony knows he's wrong, but is too cocky to admit it in public
- InControl was perfect and gets me gayer each time I watch him In a single post you managed to capture 100 percent of what I completely disagree with. It is like you are trolling me specifically! Bravo to you sir. - In a way, Idra is right, but it turns out he wasn't actually talking about imbalance he was talking about game design. I thought most people were of the opinion that we don't know enough to make definitive balance statements, yet IdrA believes he can (rather he thinks it should be discussed as fact rather than be up for debate). Time will prove out on this, so I think all one can do here is wait and see. "Seek first to understand before you try to be understood."
idra wasn't right at all and day9 responded correctly. i believe tyler made a post somewhere about how idra's train of thought is flawed (the whole door analogy). day9 was flustered because idra's response made no sense to his own. he was basically saying it will take time to decide whether zerg is underpowered or not and talking about balance issues now doesn't help the race progress. to which idra responds yeah but zerg is underpowered right now, you have no solution therefore it will always be underpowered. and day9 goes yeah but if it really is underpowered the progression of the game will show it aka his whole balancing metagame thing. idra responds that it is underpowered NOW and day9 has no solution NOW therefore it is imbalanced.
Oh, I thought we just agreed completely...except for one thing. I still think my statement about IdrA is on-base. Tyler's explanation of how a player trades safety for an advantage means there is a game design issue and not a balance issue. It is for that reason that I said IdrA was technically right (on his no scouting/defensive play point). I also called out that he labelled his complaint wrong as balance and not design. In fact, he wound agreeing with Tyler towards the end that it was in fact design on that point, not balance.
I also thought you hit it on the head with the NOW part. IdrA painted Day9 into a corner on something. Day9 said that there are unexplored solutions to his complaints, and IdrA demanded the unknown solutions as the answer to their disagreement. how the fuck can Day9 tell him what he doesn't know? It was then that I realized on a much deeper level how biased he is when it comes to balance.
|
On May 04 2011 16:16 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:13 DannyJ wrote:On May 04 2011 16:11 _civ_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:59 djcube wrote:
I think JP should consider at least playing somewhat of a host/moderator role when these debates happen. The Day9 and idrA bit was excusable because it sort of sparked on its own. However, the whole team league ordeal was even on the show's agenda, and not to be critical of JP, but it's obvious the subsequent discussion between Geoff and Tyler would be heated; and it's not in the greatest taste to let them just go at it without at least some kind of host/moderator element keeping things in track.
I second this. It would be nice to see JP play more of a moderator role and move the show on when arguments stagnate, and before they become personal. I think both of the major arguments tonight could of been stopped 2/3 of the way though without loosing much (though, I did like Tyler's perspective on the balance discussion). Not an easy role for JP to play, but I think he is up to the task. Yeah totally. All the points were made in both arguments and nothing new was shared after a certain point. JP shoulda moved along. JP said he felt this conversation needed to happen, which is why he didn't end it sooner than he did. You want to let them talk to try and see if it gets to some resolution point. JP may have let it go on a little too long, but at the same time he doesn't want to cut either off. Its a sticky situation and there isn't a great way to deal with it.
When people are repeating things over and over, and then one of them starts screaming "YOU MOTHER FUCKER!" it's obviously time to stop, for the viewers sake. JP let it go on long after that point.
The whole day9 / idra thing went on way too long too, simply because they've had the same exact argument MANY times before.
|
On May 04 2011 16:11 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 15:52 riboflavin wrote:On May 04 2011 15:40 VIB wrote:
- Idra was right about imbalance, but wasn't able to put his thoughts into words as well as he wanted
- Day9 is afraid to admit to himself that the game just might not be perfect
- Nony knows he's wrong, but is too cocky to admit it in public
- InControl was perfect and gets me gayer each time I watch him In a single post you managed to capture 100 percent of what I completely disagree with. It is like you are trolling me specifically! Bravo to you sir. - In a way, Idra is right, but it turns out he wasn't actually talking about imbalance he was talking about game design. I thought most people were of the opinion that we don't know enough to make definitive balance statements, yet IdrA believes he can (rather he thinks it should be discussed as fact rather than be up for debate). Time will prove out on this, so I think all one can do here is wait and see. "Seek first to understand before you try to be understood."
idra wasn't right at all and day9 responded correctly. i believe tyler made a post somewhere about how idra's train of thought is flawed (the whole door analogy). day9 was flustered because idra's response made no sense to his own. he was basically saying it will take time to decide whether zerg is underpowered or not and talking about balance issues now doesn't help the race progress. to which idra responds yeah but zerg is underpowered right now, you have no solution therefore it will always be underpowered. and day9 goes yeah but if it really is underpowered the progression of the game will show it aka his whole balancing metagame thing. idra responds that it is underpowered NOW and day9 has no solution NOW therefore it is imbalanced.
If Idra was right with his point about zerg not having either a single build that is solid against anything or a reliable scouting ability, then one must concede that zerg is broken. I think that was a legitimate issue and Day9 seemed to avoid discussing it. That's why I wasn't satisfied with Day9's response.
|
On May 04 2011 16:15 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:04 Pebbz wrote:On May 04 2011 15:49 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:47 L3g3nd_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:42 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:39 L3g3nd_ wrote:
1. Speedlings arent going to tell you whats going on, you wont scout a 4gate or a starport or a stargate with speedlings, you cant get inside their base.
2. again, they are so slow that you will get denied by stalker/marine/sentry before seeing their tech path
3. overseers with speed come when its too late to prepare for a 4gate (and if you rush to them youre going to die because of the investment) they simply come too late for good early game scouting.
4. again, it wont scout inside their base, though its good for map control i agree, but still it wont scout inside their base.
5. yes, but again it wont be inside their base.
A good player can deny the zerg from knowning what they are doing inside their base. a terran could come out with a 7rax no gas build and could have completly denied a zergs scouting of it, while at the same time could have done a 1rax expand with an in base CC or a double starport build. you cant prepare for all of them! You're arguing a completely different point. Read what I was responding to. The guy was arguing that Zerg can't scout as well as Protoss and Terran. I'm sorry, but a Terran doing 7 rax can deny Protoss scouting as well as he can deny Zerg scouting. And while Terrans have scans, you can hide your buildings from scans just as you can hide them from overlords. It's the same story with scouting. The difference is that Idra believes that Zerg has to react perfectly whereas other races don't because Zerg is a reactive race. Protoss has observers and hallucination, and phnx. that is great for scouting, vs zerg hallicu is standard straight after warp gate. against terran an early robo build (such as what tyler loves) gets an obs in their base fairly early, before you need to make major decisions. and zerg is a reactive race...what idra "belives" is true Zerg needs to drone up when their opponent is macroing, and build units when they are doing pressure. With terran and protoss you are constantly building units and workers, as zerg you build drones until either about 70 or 80, or when your opponent is going to attack you. really then zerg scouting should be the best, not the worst. IdrA is 100% right and knows the game very well I, and others, have already addressed the hallucination point. And getting real phoenixes and observers are both "major" decisions. You don't just drop a robo and go back to 4 gating. Are you telling me you need complete scouting info when you're doing an all-in? Way to be a complete moron and miss the point of his post. The point he was trying to make that whichever build the toss choses to go (4 gate being an example for a build), he is pigeonholed into making a robot in order to stay safe. For example he cant afford to open straight twilight council into chargelot/HT, or risk dying to a straight up cloaked banshees.
4gate is an all-in... You're confusing. Plus, in that scenario, a robo's primary purpose would be detection. Even worse, he's not even talking about the Protoss' need to get detection against Terran. We're talking about P's ability to scout.
"Way to be a complete moron and miss the point of his post."
|
On May 04 2011 16:15 thedz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:10 Falcor wrote:On May 04 2011 16:02 rotegirte wrote:On May 04 2011 15:51 Sephimos wrote:Also, people don't get to insert their pet meaning into Colbi's statement. "We invited Liquid, they chose not to attend" is a completely neutral statement. If someone can't process that, it's their own issue. Colbi's response may have been sufficient for EG to be in the clear, but at the same time left TL with little to no graceful way to pick it up from there. At the very least, a sensible PR person should know the code of conduct between business partners. i agree with your post and said the similar thing a page or 2 back. But also remember colbi is probably a sensible pr person. They are competing brands. So using wording to promote his brand is very smart. Because look at the outcome tyler looks like ass, tyler is a representative of tl so it makes tl look bad(partly), and he comes off scott free(for the most part). EG definitely could have been more forthcoming, but Tyler's response brought it to a new level of negativity. The first was a neutral PR response that omitted some information in a way that some view as shady. Tyler's response pushed his frustration and anger overtly into the spotlight, and explicitly made EG's statement seem like it was a premeditated post to make TL look bad. All in all, it mostly looks like a bunch of people got up on the wrong side of the bed several mornings in a row.
Let me start by saying I don't mean to target this at you.
If people took Colbi's first response as negative and shady, they need to stop living in a fucking fairy world. This is the real world.
|
Okay let's imagine a perfect world for IdrA where wallins didn't exist and Zerg could see everythign Terran or Protoss did all game long.
Well Terran and Protoss would lost ALL elements of aggression and would be behind 100% of the time. And in SCII unlike BW Zerg can potentially have 80+ Zerglings before Terran can even have 30 marines or Toss have 15-20 zealots. If Terran/Toss couldn't wall how the hell would they ever defend Zergling runbys and even worse.....BANELING runbys without a wall to keep them out.
Pretty sure inject larva would need to be removed from the game if wallins weren't impassable.
|
IdrA versus all non-Zergs. I think Day9, surprisingly, had a difficult time articulating his position, but both Geoff and Tyler touched on a couple of potentially salient points.
Geoff's chagrin towards IdrA was in light of IdrA's outright dismissal of his own impressive win against Kiwikaki. And I share the sentiment.
It's absolutely adorable that a championship match in which IdrA perceived his own play to be risky, and Kiwi's play to be sloppy, can be perceived by many -- including his peers -- to be some of the best ZvP of his career.
As an IdrA fan, it was the first time I've seen IdrA take full advantage of the metagame and his reputation for an entire series. He played his opponent and not just the match-up. If anything, it's that 'eye of the tiger' or killer instinct that was always lacking in his game, but is finally starting to develop.
An example of what I consider 'killer instinct' was Dimaga's 7-pool against Nestea in the GSL World Championship. That wasn't a 'cheese build', that was Dimaga executing a perfect counter to Nestea's build on Crevasse the day before in the World vs. GSL series,
It's not unlike poker, where a player adjusts his own style radically after playing 50 hands to take advantage of his reputation at the table. Up until the IPL match, IdrA has always approached SC2 similar to the way Phil Helmuth plays poker -- he wants to play SC2 'the perfect way' and bases his decisions on his opponents playing perfectly as well. This philosophy actually inhibits his play, because he makes assumptions and generalizations about his opponent, their mental toughness and capability.
So I think Geoff's chagrin during this discussion is actually a sign of respect. He thinks IdrA should give himself way more credit for playing the series masterfully. You could argue that Kiwi played poorly, and threw away his army in the deciding match. Or, you could argue that IdrA played so unpredictably the first three games, that he actually induced poor decisions from Kiwikaki.
This idea of embracing the benefits of risky play is related to Tyler's point. IdrA has been assuming for a long time that the game can or should be played without risk, or that Protosses aren't taking significant risks with some of their timings during the early stages.
But the truth is, as the game is currently designed, there are no infallible or 'perfect' builds. You could argue that Tosses are sacrificing their mid-game economy when four-gating, or map control with fast expanding.
There's nothing stopping Zerg's from taking a risks of their own to gain significant economic or tactical advantage. And while this isn't necessarily ideal game design, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'imbalanced'.
Another way of putting it: IdrA wants to play the game like chess. But the truth is it's more like Poker, and now that he's taking more risks, it's actually making him a much less predictable, and stronger player.
|
On May 04 2011 16:16 hagrin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:05 flowSthead wrote:
Day9 correctly pointed out that the better player is the one that wins.. You just wrote a novel, but I stopped here. It's this simple people - in any game where the participants are not given an exact level playing field, then poor game design can inaccurately produce results. Stating that "winning" in a non-equal environment somehow implies "better" violates so many laws of logic that no one should take anything else you say seriously. Until Day9 starts to acknowledge the concept of game design and doesn't continually fallback to the "the game is so young, we don't know anything yet" company line, nothing he says concerning balance or "the state of the game" can be taken seriously by anyone with a high functioning reasoning skills. This doesn't mean idra is right, it just means Day9 is 100% wrong on his winning=better premise.
If you stopped reading, then you have no right to judge what I wrote. I pointed that it is logically impossible to determine a better player. I never said the better player is the one who wins. I said that better is situational based on the current information, which can only be the one who wins. Is Napoleon a better general than Wellington? It is a meaningless question. Wellington won the battle.
Next time, please read what I wrote, instead of taking my quote out of context. That is severely bad debating.
|
On May 04 2011 16:16 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:08 L3g3nd_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:56 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:51 L3g3nd_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:49 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:47 L3g3nd_ wrote:On May 04 2011 15:42 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 15:39 L3g3nd_ wrote:
1. Speedlings arent going to tell you whats going on, you wont scout a 4gate or a starport or a stargate with speedlings, you cant get inside their base.
2. again, they are so slow that you will get denied by stalker/marine/sentry before seeing their tech path
3. overseers with speed come when its too late to prepare for a 4gate (and if you rush to them youre going to die because of the investment) they simply come too late for good early game scouting.
4. again, it wont scout inside their base, though its good for map control i agree, but still it wont scout inside their base.
5. yes, but again it wont be inside their base.
A good player can deny the zerg from knowning what they are doing inside their base. a terran could come out with a 7rax no gas build and could have completly denied a zergs scouting of it, while at the same time could have done a 1rax expand with an in base CC or a double starport build. you cant prepare for all of them! You're arguing a completely different point. Read what I was responding to. The guy was arguing that Zerg can't scout as well as Protoss and Terran. I'm sorry, but a Terran doing 7 rax can deny Protoss scouting as well as he can deny Zerg scouting. And while Terrans have scans, you can hide your buildings from scans just as you can hide them from overlords. It's the same story with scouting. The difference is that Idra believes that Zerg has to react perfectly whereas other races don't because Zerg is a reactive race. Protoss has observers and hallucination, and phnx. that is great for scouting, vs zerg hallicu is standard straight after warp gate. against terran an early robo build (such as what tyler loves) gets an obs in their base fairly early, before you need to make major decisions. and zerg is a reactive race...what idra "belives" is true Zerg needs to drone up when their opponent is macroing, and build units when they are doing pressure. With terran and protoss you are constantly building units and workers, as zerg you build drones until either about 70 or 80, or when your opponent is going to attack you. really then zerg scouting should be the best, not the worst. IdrA is 100% right and knows the game very well I, and others, have already addressed the hallucination point. And getting real phoenixes and observers are both "major" decisions. You don't just drop a robo and go back to 4 gating. what scouting do you need to do when youre 4gating lol If you are 4gating the onus is on the other player to adapt to the aggression. you dont need to scout when you 4gate. No shit? Well guess what, 4 gate is a coin flip. Because if you 4 gate against someone who is prepared against it you basically lose. It's no different than a Zerg roach ling all-in that fails and then they lose. Idra is pissed that he can be beaten by coin flips which is the whole reason for his rant against Day9 on SOTG. But as Tyler pointed out, it's not just Zerg who has to deal with coin flips. 3 gate expand isn't safe against many builds - Idra simply refuses to acknowledge it because every time Protoss loses he just calls the player bad. What you mean no shit? i had to state the obvious because whoever i was responding to didn't understand. It depends how you 4gate. if you simply build 4gates then attack, sure its a bit of a coin toss. but top level players dont think like that. they will play mind games on their opponent. a good example was cruncher vs naniwa in the TSL. CrunCher gas stealed NaNiwa, which would make NaNiwa think he wasn't 4gating and consequently not be prepared for it, the same kind of things can be done in other match ups. maybe sacrficie your 4 gate timing by not chrono boosting the cyber at all vs zerg, and then doing an all in when he isnt expecting it. or the fake expand builds we see going on. These kind of possibilites turn the 4gate away from a coin flip and more into a clever tactic. and what at your last point? a 3gate sentry expo is protoss's safe build against zerg, it can hold off any 1base all in or timing attack.... Lol what. I brought up robo after 4 gate to make a point about Protoss committing to a strategy before he is able to scout and you respond with "why of course you can't scout before you 4 gate!" and expect the conversation to proceed logically forward? You just proved my point. Protoss can't scout before he commits to a mid game strategy.
what? good lord its like banging your head against a wall, oh wait thats what im doing.
Its pretty clear you know nothing about this game, so im not going to bother trying to explain these basic concepts to you.
all the best
|
Okay I will start here. I can only assume you are suggesting Colbi was going with option "B." If not... skip this section as I misunderstood.
Here is the thing with option B... he never took it. He never said "I did everything I could. Please quote the line above that Colbi said... and show me where he said that he did everything he could. You won't be able to find it. He said they were invited and that is it. He didn't say "Liquid was invited but refused to cooperate" or "Liquid was invited but would not accept no matter what we tried" he simply said "Liquid was invited."
I have said it multiple times in this thread, but I will say it again here. People are blowing a single sentence way out of proportion. You are reading way too far into it... regardless I will continue on.
He didnt say we invited liquid.they said. "We invited Team Liquid, and they chose not to attend" is misleading and spin. If he said "We invited Team Liquid, and because of a irreconcilable difference they chose not to attend" is typical pr bullshit response that doesnt put a negative light on any side but you still answer the question but dont say anything. The first response is more of a hey we offered but they didnt want to, not our fault.
If you look at dana white for example(he is known for not giving the best pr answers) when people were on him to get fedor into the league for a looooooong time he was like me and his management are having differences in the contract and cant come to terms. Which is unusual for dana to be so neutral, usually he speaks his mind. But he relizes when talking about a relationship you want to keep healthy you dont say anything that can be seen as putting a bad light on the other person. Like the "they chose not attend" comment did because people were like right away "wtf why not, thats dumb"
.....now that being said after a month of hounding for a answer he called fedors managers morons etc and started to promote his league and try to damage the fedor brand after he relized a agreement wasnt going to be met.
|
On May 04 2011 16:09 I_Love_Bacon wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 04 2011 16:02 rotegirte wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 15:51 Sephimos wrote:Also, people don't get to insert their pet meaning into Colbi's statement. "We invited Liquid, they chose not to attend" is a completely neutral statement. If someone can't process that, it's their own issue. let's say: 1) Liquid was invited, but certain issues couldn't be resolved. 2) Liquid was invited, but unfortunately certain issues couldn't be resolved. 3) Liquid was invited, but unfortunately certain issues couldn't be resolved. I am sure you will hear official word about their decision from the team themselves. 4) Liquid was invited, but issues regarding parts of their lineup playing from KR unfortunately couldn't be resolved. 5) Liquid was invited, but deemed themselves unable to compete due to two of their players being in KR. Maybe Liquid doesn't want the issue discussed at all. That would be Colbi being presumptuous to imply that they will respond or have any desire to share their side. All of these scenarios mean that he knows Liquid desire to discuss the issue in public. What if it's not the case? The stance he took is the correct one. If Liquid wants to respond, then they're perfectly capable of doing so.
You do realize that these examples are not to be taken literally, but showcasing the impact of wording? You taking it out of context is in fact a perfect exhibit how omitting information works.
|
On May 04 2011 16:16 Pebbz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:11 mahnini wrote:On May 04 2011 15:52 riboflavin wrote:On May 04 2011 15:40 VIB wrote:
- Idra was right about imbalance, but wasn't able to put his thoughts into words as well as he wanted
- Day9 is afraid to admit to himself that the game just might not be perfect
- Nony knows he's wrong, but is too cocky to admit it in public
- InControl was perfect and gets me gayer each time I watch him In a single post you managed to capture 100 percent of what I completely disagree with. It is like you are trolling me specifically! Bravo to you sir. - In a way, Idra is right, but it turns out he wasn't actually talking about imbalance he was talking about game design. I thought most people were of the opinion that we don't know enough to make definitive balance statements, yet IdrA believes he can (rather he thinks it should be discussed as fact rather than be up for debate). Time will prove out on this, so I think all one can do here is wait and see. "Seek first to understand before you try to be understood."
idra wasn't right at all and day9 responded correctly. i believe tyler made a post somewhere about how idra's train of thought is flawed (the whole door analogy). day9 was flustered because idra's response made no sense to his own. he was basically saying it will take time to decide whether zerg is underpowered or not and talking about balance issues now doesn't help the race progress. to which idra responds yeah but zerg is underpowered right now, you have no solution therefore it will always be underpowered. and day9 goes yeah but if it really is underpowered the progression of the game will show it aka his whole balancing metagame thing. idra responds that it is underpowered NOW and day9 has no solution NOW therefore it is imbalanced. I don't see it that way. I see it that IdrA's current frustrations have no visible solution. While there is that process of opening doors as Tyler so eloquently put, but IdrA says that the Zergs have a fundamental problem, which is scouting. He claims that there should either be a way for Zerg to obtain good scouting information or have a super safe, efficient opening (like 3gate expand) that can keep them alive and push it to the midgame. IdrA sees the former option to be impossible, he only turns to the other option and that is why I believe he asked Day9 for a suggestion. But who's anyone kidding? IdrA knew Day9 had no response for that question because, quite simply, Day9 doesn't play SC2 enough.
a long time ago in bw in PvZ protoss was considered to have a fundamental flaw against zerg. there was no way to scout lurker or muta so you had to prepare for both which prepared you for neither and put you behind. we see today though that pvz in bw is still alive and kicking. the idea that idra somehow possesses the ability to see EVERY possible variation in builds and game evolution EVER is pretty ridiculous.
|
On May 04 2011 16:10 Falcor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:02 rotegirte wrote:On May 04 2011 15:51 Sephimos wrote:Also, people don't get to insert their pet meaning into Colbi's statement. "We invited Liquid, they chose not to attend" is a completely neutral statement. If someone can't process that, it's their own issue. Colbi's response may have been sufficient for EG to be in the clear, but at the same time left TL with little to no graceful way to pick it up from there. At the very least, a sensible PR person should know the code of conduct between business partners. i agree with your post and said the similar thing a page or 2 back. But also remember colbi is probably a sensible pr person. They are competing brands. So using wording to promote his brand is very smart. Because look at the outcome tyler looks like ass, tyler is a representative of tl so it makes tl look bad(partly), and he comes off scott free(for the most part). Which is why im not a fan of eg, they're shady and do alot of shaddy shit to push their brand. When other brands are actually about the community
Oh my god I actually can't stop responding to posts like this. It is actually incredible.
"Because look a the outcome"
Do you think Colbi planned this reaction out? You know what... let me take this from a more basic perspective.
Lets say that Tyler responded to him and said "Yes, we declined as we did not with to have all our players play on the NA server." Do you think the outcome would have been the same? Do you think TL would "look bad" as you say? The answer is no. What would look bad about plainly saying why they wished not to play? Nothing.
It was Tyler's decision to take it to this personal level... and that's completely fine that is his choice... but why are you spinning things like Colbi is some mastermind planner looking to screw TL. I actually can't believe you are posting such a thing.
I have so ways I want to respond to this... but at the same time I am so confused... all I know is you are incredibly biased and I am VERY sure that you are a TL fan.
Wow...
|
On May 04 2011 16:08 Chicane wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 15:54 TreDawg wrote:
I think Tyler was completely right about the PR thing. Being a forum this is a place of discussion. If a discussion takes place based on incomplete information then its bullshit. What Colbi said was technically true but it was phrased in a negative manner and it was incomplete information. Without further qualifying Colbi's explanation it makes Liquid look like a bunch of stuck up pricks, which is absolutely not the case. Actually... it was a neutral statement. It is only when people get upset over it that it looks negative. Am I seriously the only one here (regardless of which side you are on) that thinks it is ridiculous to react this much to a single sentence? I'm no longer aloud to quote it as the topic was closed for whatever reason... but this was a direct quote from Tyler if you want to look it up. "Liquid showed interest, but EG chose not to accommodate us. Ah, perspective!" - Liquid Tyler Now let me quote you. "If a discussion takes place based on incomplete information then its bullshit" "... but it was phrased in a negative manner and it was incomplete information." "Without further qualifying [Tyler's] explanation it makes [EG] look like a bunch of stuck up pricks, which is absolutely not the case." I have a few things to say here... and I will start with the last part. So I switched the roles. Now based off Tyler's response it looks like EG are some snotty greedy group of guys who doesn't want TL taking their money, so they purposely chose not to accommodate TL (based off how you interpret things). Why are people not getting angry with Tyler? Well that's because of bias. I also don't feel that people should attack Tyler for that statement, but the same thing is being done to Colbi just because it was mentioned when a notable player said it while in an emotional state. Also... the more obvious part is that what he (Tyler) said also lacked information... and if I were to look at it how you looked at Colbi's response... then I could argue that it is negative. Here is the fact. It is a single... fucking... sentence. He clearly was not trying to be a dick. Many teams and players have declined from events in the past... and guess what... we often got a "they declined" response and it wasn't a big deal. The same thing happened here... except it got attention from a very notable person so people are blowing it out of proportion. Please tell me where I am going wrong. I am not saying nit pick the small details, but address my overall argument that it is a single sentence that is being blown way out of proportion... and that he shouldn't be held so accountable for a single wording that can very easily be interpreted as neutral.
I would also like to point out that, after listening to Tyler attempt to explain how he feels individuals should post on TL forums, Tyler seemed to have been going against his own views with his reply to Colbi.
|
I fail to see how saying "we invited liquid, and they chose not to attend" is deceptive. Colbi is stating what happened, nothing more. TL is where everyone goes for tourney news like this, its unfair for Tyler to think they shouldn't post this kind of news on TL, or that because it is Liquid's website, and they are not in the tourney, special consideration needs to be taken for describing why they are not in the tourney.
Tyler always has strong arguments imo, but he just misssed the mark on this one. It doesn't change my opinion of him or anything I think he's great, just gotta give this one up.
Tasteless is hilarious btw, its a shame he was on in the middle of such carnage haha but he should come back
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
