|
On May 04 2011 16:05 flowSthead wrote:
TLDR Idra argued better, but made many logical fallacies. Day9 argued poorly, but was ignored when making good points. Incontrol made good points, and Tyler worded himself poorly. Tyler was right in his criticism of lack of information, but Incontrol was right that Tyler wasn't mannered enough in his position of power on the forum.
brillant post couldn't of said it better myself. I just wanted to add that the point that Day[9] was trying to drive home was that, "well hold on wait we don't yet if the game has any real imbalances because the game so young," Before we start saying imba we should wait (especially with the maps getting changing and getting bigger).I think he was trying to tell Idra maybe the way he thinks about the game is not exactly the way it is.
|
I think one concept of Z that isn't brought up enough is the APM dedicated to essential actions as Zerg over the other races. Spreading Creep, managing overlord rally's mid/late game are the biggest two I can think of. Supply Depos/Pylons don't randomly float into enemy fire. I know that's considered bad control but when you factor in the actions required for the Z to always make sure the overlords are safe etc when the other races have nothing similar.
Damn, I missed some larva injects. Guess I'll just drop some extra creep tumors and spread them some more. Terran.. damn I forgot some mules, guess I'll just drop 5 of them on the gold base.
I'm sure other zergs get that hopeless feel game after game of spreading creep, nailing perfect injects, droning just right just to be killed by some stupid all in you didn't scout properly. As a Z I almost feel hopeless right off the bat, it's like a race against time.
|
I kind of sympathize with Tyler now that I'm seeing how the argument went. It's just one of those things where you know you have a good point to make and want to make people realize that point, but you're getting too heated/annoyed to articulate yourself properly and you end up making no sense, which only adds to the aggravation.
|
On May 04 2011 16:26 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:24 Pebbz wrote:On May 04 2011 16:16 Azarkon wrote: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. 4gate is not a midgame strategy.. Stop mincing words. 4 gate is not an all-in in PvP, it's standard.
I thought this whole argument was comparing the scouting abilities of DIFFERENT races. Then again it's hard to follow the endless babbling...
Edit: Booyah 1000 posts!!!
|
On May 04 2011 16:26 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:22 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 04 2011 16:15 thedz wrote: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. Hmm. His comment wasn't particularly negative but it was not as neutral as it could have been and left TL's end of the story open which is mildly unsettling when all he had to say was "TL declined because of unresolvable server issue" that has completely fine neutrality and clears EG and TL of responsibility while what he actually said cleared EG of responsibility but left TL open for either neutral or negative reasons. Thats where it being an open thread comes into factor. Liquid members can say why they declined
Yea but the whole point is he shouldn't leave it completely ambiguous. At least give it direction by saying "...due to unresolvable server issues" there is no good reason to leave that out. By your logic all colbi would say in a forum is "well they were invited" and let TL formulate their own response. But what you think if you saw this conversation?
"why isnt liquid there?"
"well, EG invited them"
You would be really confused and infer that TL didn't respond or something else (but its important to note that this response would have a negative connotation)
|
I don't get this whole the better player should win thing. I mean in a game that has 6 different matchups and different elements involved in each matchup I mean if the better player always won what would be the point of team-leagues?
There's always specific matchup Sniper's and so many well thought out builds to deal with specifics player's play-styles that I'm not sure the better player should ALWAYS win. SlayerS_MMA beat July,Mvp and MC does that make him Better than all of them. Not necessarily. But he has shown that he and his whole team work on specific builds designed to snipe these guys.
Idra himself said he never really designs weird builds at all. maybe he should thing about that and figure out that that is a huge problem. I mean players like Thorzain, MMA, Bomber pretty much all super successful player in SCII design builds specifically for their opponent but IdrA admits to just playing standard all the time and hopeing that just carries him through.
Flash never played standard, his FD variant and +2 +1 TvP builds were design by him to counter popular Protoss trends, he never just played standard. The best players have always been innovative and adaptable and always just had good macro to fall back on. They never just went into the game thinking that macro alone would win it. All the best Macro players in BW were all innovative in crafting exotic builds as well. Particularly OOV.
|
On May 04 2011 16:22 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 04 2011 16:15 thedz wrote: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. Hmm. His comment wasn't particularly negative but it was not as neutral as it could have been and left TL's end of the story open which is mildly unsettling when all he had to say was "TL declined because of unresolvable server issue" that has completely fine neutrality and clears EG and TL of responsibility while what he actually said cleared EG of responsibility but left TL open for either neutral or negative reasons.
Comming from a business side of pr, I would say that a respons from EG should not touch any of teamliquids reasons to not accepting the invite.
It would be a pretty bad way of handling a pr situation on the fly, saying things that teamliquid might want to talk about themself is just a no no.
The EG respons was 100% correct for a quick respons that wasn't discussed in advance between TL and EG. State the f acts without going in to details that involve the other partys reasoning behond closed doors. It is up to teamliquid to make the case for not accepting the tournaments rules.
|
On May 04 2011 16:27 Ihpares wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:11 Raiznhell 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. Going to address this point by point. So what's the reaction involved in the 14 hatch builds? Also all Terran and Protoss builds are in there own right a reaction to whatever Zerg may be doing. So you'd rather lose the game instead of losing 4 larva? The mining time of 2 workers I don't think means that much considering Zerg is always ahead in workers anyways besides building a Turret that early costs us Terrans 200-400 minerals = 8 Marines, 4 supply depots, 2 barracks, a command centre and a bunch of other costs for the gain of safety. A scans field of vision of not equivalent to 4 overlords so that entire point is not even a point. And 100 minerals is still more than 300. Zerg pretty much gets not very much less scouting options than the other two races and with a unit like the Zergling that you get for 25 minerals and half a larva. Zerg has no excuse to not poke the front and see what the other player might have. Terran and Protoss builds don't work quite the same way. Think of it this way - A protoss "Deathball" consists of the same units against all three races, Terran can MMM against all three races, and Zerg has no consistent build that works consistently against all three races. They MUST respond to the other races, moreso than the other races must respond to them.
I snipped the rest of the post because it makes perfect sense and this thread already has a billion walls of text in it. 
Anyway, I take issue with this kind of blanket statement. Terran MMM versus Zerg is very different from MMM versus Protoss. Versus protoss, you have to mix in ghosts (especially if they go HT/immortals) and vikings (if they go heavy colossi) and slice down the medivac numbers, while versus Zerg you have to ratchet up the medivac count and supplement with tanks (banelings) or thors if they go heavy muta. And MMM in TvT isn't really viable.
For Protoss, the PvZ death ball appears to be Void Ray/Colossus/Stalker. This is markedly different from the PvT death ball which frequently mixes high templar, colossi, and zealots or phoenix, colossi, and stalkers. In PvP death ball play isn't that great, it's just Colossi roaming the land.
So yeah. One unit composition does not work against every race in the late game. In the early game, 4gate is arguable and 2rax is also arguable. I personally feel like they aren't that great.
|
On May 04 2011 16:30 mmorrow401 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:05 flowSthead wrote:
TLDR Idra argued better, but made many logical fallacies. Day9 argued poorly, but was ignored when making good points. Incontrol made good points, and Tyler worded himself poorly. Tyler was right in his criticism of lack of information, but Incontrol was right that Tyler wasn't mannered enough in his position of power on the forum.
brillant post couldn't of said it better myself. I just wanted to add that the point that Day[9] was trying to drive home was that, "well hold on wait we don't yet if the game has any real imbalances because the game so young," Before we start saying imba we should wait (especially with the maps getting changing and getting bigger).I think he was trying to tell Idra maybe the way he thinks about the game is not exactly the way it is.
Precisely. Day9's best response to Idra is to not get into the specifics discussion, which he has already rejected by virtue of the philosophy behind his argument. Idra is trying to get Day9 to admit that he doesn't know what Zergs can do to make the match-up less of a coin flip. But Day9's philosophy doesn't require that he provide an answer to this question. Idra is the guy saying "tell me how we'll achieve world peace. If you can't, then that proves we can't ever have world peace." Day9 is the guy saying "patience."
|
I just want to step back to the beginning of the Day9 & Idra conversation about imbalance.
Day9 lead off with a statement like (paraphrasing): 'No game is imbalanced.'
I think what Day9 is referring to what in Economics is actually called "Game Theory"; that is, after a game has been played an optimal strategy is derived and played.
This optimal strategy may not necessary be doing the same thing over and over again (called a "pure strategy"), but rather is mix of different action played with the correct probabilities (called a "mixed strategy"). As Day9 pointed out, under the current setup it might be optimal that Zerg should not played, we just don't know given existing data limitations.
Thus, the argument goes, a game is never truly "imbalanced" if all the players have access to the same set of rules (ignore the lag issue here please!), because all players will adopt the optimal strategy.
However, Day9 made the distinction (if I remember correctly) between the technical definition of imbalance under Game Theory and poor game design. Blizzard and the community may want all three races to have equal win percentages -- a difficult task for sure -- but that desire for racial balance has nothing to do with the existence of optimal strategies for playing SC2.
|
On May 04 2011 16:32 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:26 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 16:24 Pebbz wrote:On May 04 2011 16:16 Azarkon wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 4gate is not a midgame strategy.. Stop mincing words. 4 gate is not an all-in in PvP, it's standard. I thought this whole argument was comparing the scouting abilities of DIFFERENT races. Then again it's hard to follow the endless babbling... Edit: Booyah 1000 posts!!!
It stopped being that once Pebbz stopped responding coherently about the point I was making. Whether a 4 gate is an all-in strategy has nothing whatsoever to do with whether P and Z have similar scouting abilities. So why is it brought up at all?
|
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
|
|
|
On May 04 2011 16:20 Falcor wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Honestly... what went through your head when he said "they chose not to attend"? You know what that doesn't even matter honestly. So basically you are saying your argument is "this is all Colbi's fault (all the arguing that occurred and all that) for not saying "because of an irreconcilable difference" even though a TL member could have said something on their behalf (and in fact did) and simply end it in a perfectly normal fashion?
Are you saying that if Tyler's first response to Colbi was "Yes and just for clarification, we chose not to play due to the fact that many of our players did not wish to play all their games on the NA server" that any of this would be a big deal? Well of course that is not the case...
So what is your point? That Colbi maybe should have been a bit more careful because apparently things MIGHT go wrong? Keep in mind, there have been MANY players and teams declining from MANY events in the past, and often we are greeted with the standard "they declined" and get nothing more from it until it is clarified by the player... and it has never been an issue? Why? Because the player them self chose to not make it a big deal.
I feel like we are getting further away from the root of the problem here... but honestly if you think the only problem here is Colbi's wording... then that is a bit ridiculous. He clearly told his side, and the end result.
Team Liquid did in fact choose not to play... so why do you put such a focus on the word chose?
Lets see. Would it be better if he simply said "Team liquid was invited" to the point where he would STRICTLY be speaking solely on behalf of himself and his organization? Surely that would be alright... right? He wouldn't be impeding on Team Liquids situation (because if he did then that could be seen as rude... which people could flame him for) right? So then what would you think in THAT situation? Hmm... TL was invited... TL is not in the league... Hmm... they must have chosen not to play in this league.
Look at that, we would reach all the same conclusions. The point I am making here is that he didn't personally speak on behalf of another organization. He is not in a place to do so... if you think otherwise then you don't know business. Another point I am making is that if you are arguing that using the word "chose" is the root of the problem, you are wrong because all he did was state the obvious after stating that TL was invited.
Finally... and the most important point that you did not address (interesting...) was that it was a single fucking sentence. Now I humored you and responded to all the little intricacies... but please tell me why he should be scrutinized for a single sentence while Tyler had an equally (and arguably more rude/aggressive response) ambiguous response that did not clarify both sides? Feel free to respond to those major points.
And once again here is the quote from the closed thread.
"Liquid showed interest, but EG chose not to accommodate us.
Ah, perspective!" -Liquid Tyler
|
On May 04 2011 16:36 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:32 DannyJ wrote:On May 04 2011 16:26 Azarkon wrote:On May 04 2011 16:24 Pebbz wrote:On May 04 2011 16:16 Azarkon wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 4gate is not a midgame strategy.. Stop mincing words. 4 gate is not an all-in in PvP, it's standard. I thought this whole argument was comparing the scouting abilities of DIFFERENT races. Then again it's hard to follow the endless babbling... Edit: Booyah 1000 posts!!! It stopped being that once Pebbz stopped responding coherently about the point I was making. Whether a 4 gate is an all-in strategy has nothing whatsoever to do with whether P and Z have similar scouting abilities. So why is it brought up at all?
4gate in a non-mirror match scenario is considered an all-in. You somehow thought I was talking about PvP for some odd reason.
You claimed that a Robo was forced when a Protoss was 4gating, which is completely untrue. Do you now understand?
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50637 Posts
|
On May 04 2011 16:33 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:26 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 04 2011 16:22 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 04 2011 16:15 thedz wrote: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. Hmm. His comment wasn't particularly negative but it was not as neutral as it could have been and left TL's end of the story open which is mildly unsettling when all he had to say was "TL declined because of unresolvable server issue" that has completely fine neutrality and clears EG and TL of responsibility while what he actually said cleared EG of responsibility but left TL open for either neutral or negative reasons. Thats where it being an open thread comes into factor. Liquid members can say why they declined Yea but the whole point is he shouldn't leave it completely ambiguous. At least give it direction by saying "...due to unresolvable server issues" there is no good reason to leave that out. By your logic all colbi would say in a forum is "well they were invited" and let TL formulate their own response. But what you think if you saw this conversation? "why isnt liquid there?" "well, EG invited them" You would be really confused and infer that TL didn't respond or something else (but its important to note that this response would have a negative connotation)
It is not EG's responsibility to tell the public of another organizations reasoning. And I don't want to talk about hypothetical conversations when we know what actually happened. After I read that TL declined, I was looking for Liquid to make a statement why. This is how the real world works.
|
only 1 hour in and i already think that this episode will create the most "discussion" so far
and by discussion i mean endless pages of yelling and arguing ^^
|
On May 04 2011 16:40 SmoKim wrote:
only 1 hour in and i already think that this episode will create the most "discussion" so far
and by discussion i mean endless pages of yelling and arguing ^^
Then you will have meltdown when finishing the episode
|
On May 04 2011 16:34 Jiddra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:22 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:19 jmbthirteen wrote:On May 04 2011 16:15 thedz wrote: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. Hmm. His comment wasn't particularly negative but it was not as neutral as it could have been and left TL's end of the story open which is mildly unsettling when all he had to say was "TL declined because of unresolvable server issue" that has completely fine neutrality and clears EG and TL of responsibility while what he actually said cleared EG of responsibility but left TL open for either neutral or negative reasons. Comming from a business side of pr, I would say that a respons from EG should not touch any of teamliquids reasons to not accepting the invite. It would be a pretty bad way of handling a pr situation on the fly, saying things that teamliquid might want to talk about themself is just a no no. The EG respons was 100% correct for a quick respons that wasn't discussed in advance between TL and EG.
If EG shouldn't touch on the reasons without consulting TL then the post should not have been made. Because obviously what happened was Tyler overcompensating for a negative inference which came from the ambiguity of colbi's post. I think in this case it is more important to word it neutral than to refrain from commenting on why TL declined. I still fail to see how "TL was invited but declined due to unresolvable server issues" is in any way inferior to what colbi said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
