|
Sigh I don't really want to make a comment about the 2 arguments, but I'm bored at work soooo. here we go.
Both arguments were stupid. It was a pretty lame state of the game to be honest, because it had nothing to do with the actual state of the game.
Day9's argument is actually pretty airtight. Since people have trouble listening i'm going to lay it out as simple as possible. You can even argue this side without ever having played Starcraft 2.
Day9's Argument
1. There is a game with 2 players.
2. There is an optimal set of choices these 2 players can make to maximize their chance of victory. This is true of all games.
2a. (Starcraft specific) If this optimal set of choices does not include equality among race choice, the game can be said to be imbalanced.
3. If the optimal set of choices that maximize a player's chance for victory has not yet been discovered yet, then no one can conclusively say the game is imbalanced or not imbalanced.
4. In Starcraft 2,
-there is not enough data to support that the optimal set of choices has been reached.
-there has not been enough time to discover the optimal set of choices.
5. Thus, one cannot say say conclusively there exists imbalance.
6. Likewise, one cannot say conclusively there does not exist imbalance.
Idra's issue is he disagrees with tenet 4. He believes there is enough data to support that the optimal set of choices to win will not include equality among race choice. Specifically, he mentioned scouting. And with Idra's vast knowledge, he can cite specific examples for why failure to scout = death. I'm sure he has others reason's aside from that.
However, unless Idra is a godlike starcraft being with complete knowledge of of all initial conditions and variables, he cannot conclusively conclude Zerg is underpowered with his argument. He is by far closer to the correct conclusion than some others, but he cannot conclusively conclude the game is imbalanced yet. Likewise, however, no one in the show can conclude the game is balanced.
You can't continue the argument unless Idra was willing to admit he is not a godlike starcraft being with complete and total knowledge of the game. Idra pressed Day9 with essentially the question "Well what other unknowns are there then? What am i missing?" Obviously, Day9 can't respond to this. It's an unfair question. He has neither the expertise nor the position to answer such a question. Again, Idra believes he has explored the entirety of all Zerg options and cannot be swayed until either more options are presented to him.
Overall, you either accept Idra and other pro Zergs has explored the Zerg race conclusively, and thus game is imbalanced, or you accept Day9's tenet that there are still unknowns left to explore and thus one cannot conclude the game is imbalanced.
Personally, given the newness of this game and pure unbiased statistics I find it really hard to take Idra's side on this. In fact, I can only imagine other Zerg players taking Idra's side because they are the only ones with the opportunity to uncover all the unknown variables in this game.
Incontrol vs Tyler is way easier to break down.
It's a case of misunderstanding.
Tyler's argument
1. Tyler believes that Teamliquid's forums is TL's house. Indeed it probably is.
2. A "newcomer" to the TL forum from EG comes in and announces a team tournament on TL.
3. TL is notably absent from the tournament.
4. When asked why, the EG representative says "We invited them, and they declined."
5. There are a variety of reasons why TL declined the tournament. Tyler believes that EG's comment implies something negative towards TL. He takes additional offense that EG made this comment on the TL forums, ie in TL's own turf. Thus, the retaliation and his request that when making such comments, EG should explain all the details regardless whether or not it paints EG or TL in a negative light.
Incontrol disagrees with Tyler that what EG said implies any negativity. Secondly, he believes they do not have the right to post TL's side of the story because they are not TL. Furthermore, he believes EG or any other team should be allowed to paint their team in a non negative light on TL because it is THE SC community. I do however believe incontrol is in agreement with tyler that no team should be allowed to paint TL's team in a negative light on TL's own forums.
Incontrol and Tyler just interpreted the same thing differently with different sets of values.
Seriously, these 2 things were not interesting to listen to, but hey better than work.
|
Where can I get JP's chair? Such a nice a chair.
|
On May 04 2011 16:41 Jiddra wrote:Show nested quote +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 
i can't wait for the EG discussion :D :D :D
|
Liquid`Tyler's response is oozing sarcasm and was pointing out Colbi's negative (at least a third of viewers thought so) statement, I don't really see anything wrong - he's not literally saying EG didn't chose to accommodate us but he's pointing out the negative connotations of Colbi's original statement.
It's obvious that Liquid as a team set up to make a point about cross-server play, to Tyler - Colbi was trying to PR it up. They just sacrificed their spot in a big Team League to purpose point this out and EG try to cover it up? Tyler's response may have not been ideal but it definately sparked a very long thread about Cross-Server tournament which is probably which is what they wanted.
Tyler said himself he was satisfied by SirScoot's response, but would that have ever come up if Tyler didn't prod the fire?
|
|
|
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've been reading your posts, and you really don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.
There is a build called 3 gate expand in which you build sentries. In this build, you have the option of researching Hallucination, which is an upgrade from the Cybernetics Core. It gives your sentries an ability that can be used for scouting. When going for this scouting ability, it works out that you are in fact able to get scouting in as your Nexus is going up, which is before you really commit to a mid-game strategy. This is, of course, under the assumption that a one-base all in is, in fact, not a mid-game strategy, but an early-game strategy that, other than in PvP, is often intended to end the game immediately, and even in PvP, transitions into other builds that are the mid-game strategy you are talking about.
The mention of "if you 4 gate against someone who is prepared against it you basically lose" is in fact completely obvious and far and away irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Being prepared for it, or other all ins, is the key. Either you blindly counter it, or you react to it. To react to seeing someone your opponent is doing implies some sort of scouting has occurred. Which is what the whole point of this discussion is.
IdrA is mostly pissed about the combination of difficult scouting for zerg early game (and the easy scouting, speed overlords, comes after things like scans and hallucination, which is easy scouting for the other 2 races), the unreliability of reactionary static defense (spine crawler build time), and the inability to use excess units made in defense towards counterattacking (zerglings and roaches don't do well against wall-ins, bunkers, or force fields).
|
On May 04 2011 16:42 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:34 Jiddra 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. 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.
No, sometimes you need to say something. It would be strange, and seem silly, to not answer the question. So a simple answer stating the facts, without any details, is the correct respons. Behind the scenes EG should then contact TL and check if they want to explain the reasons by themself or if they should explain the thing more in detail togheter.
This is such a non issuie really, big money is joining a forum culture.
|
I don't even understand how people can criticize Colbi. He said that Liquid chose not to participate. That's as milquetoast an explanation as you can give. Tyler responds by flat-out accusing Colbi of malfeasance by saying Liquid was not accommodated, as though TL are fucking royalty that need the red carpet rolled out
|
On May 04 2011 16:38 Pebbz wrote:
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?
What? I never claimed a robo was forced when a Protoss 4-gates. I said that a Protoss who is 4-gating has no more scouting information than a Zerg without lair. Your entire argument is based on the idea that Zerg somehow lacks the scouting ability of Protoss because getting a robo is standard and so every Protoss has access to observers. Yet every Zerg build on the planet except all-ins gets a lair - so lair is also standard. Your point therefore makes no sense.
Zergs can get overseers at around the same time as Protoss gets observers, but current Zerg builds do not because they stay on hatch for a long ass time. Zergs apparently feel that their best chance right now is to go blind greed - and then wonder why they lose to coin-flips. That makes no sense. If you're going to bitch about not being able to scout, then bitch about it correctly and illustrate exactly why Zerg cannot but stay on hatch for the first 8 minutes of the game.
|
On May 04 2011 16:44 GhostFall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sigh I don't really want to make a comment about the 2 arguments, but I'm bored at work soooo. here we go.
Both arguments were stupid. It was a pretty lame state of the game to be honest, because it had nothing to do with the actual state of the game.
Day9's argument is actually pretty airtight. Since people have trouble listening i'm going to lay it out as simple as possible. You can even argue this side without ever having played Starcraft 2.
Day9's Argument
1. There is a game with 2 players.
2. There is an optimal set of choices these 2 players can make to maximize their chance of victory. This is true of all games.
2a. (Starcraft specific) If this optimal set of choices does not include equality among race choice, the game can be said to be imbalanced.
3. If the optimal set of choices that maximize a player's chance for victory has not yet been discovered yet, then no one can conclusively say the game is imbalanced or not imbalanced.
4. In Starcraft 2,
-there is not enough data to support that the optimal set of choices has been reached.
-there has not been enough time to discover the optimal set of choices.
5. Thus, one cannot say say conclusively there exists imbalance.
6. Likewise, one cannot say conclusively there does not exist imbalance.
Idra's issue is he disagrees with tenet 4. He believes there is enough data to support that the optimal set of choices to win will not include equality among race choice. Specifically, he mentioned scouting. And with Idra's vast knowledge, he can cite specific examples for why failure to scout = death. I'm sure he has others reason's aside from that.
However, unless Idra is a godlike starcraft being with complete knowledge of of all initial conditions and variables, he cannot conclusively conclude Zerg is overpowered with his argument. He is by far closer to the correct conclusion than some others, but he cannot conclusively conclude the game is imbalanced yet. Likewise, however, no one in the show can conclude the game is balanced.
You can't continue the argument unless Idra was willing to admit he is not a godlike starcraft being with complete and total knowledge of the game. Idra pressed Day9 with essentially the question "Well what other unknowns are there then? What am i missing?" Obviously, Day9 can't respond to this. It's an unfair question. He has neither the expertise nor the position to answer such a question. Again, Idra believes he has explored the entirety of all Zerg options and cannot be swayed until either more options are presented to him.
Overall, you either accept Idra and other pro Zergs has explored the Zerg race conclusively, and thus game is imbalanced, or you accept Day9's tenet that there are still unknowns left to explore and thus one cannot conclude the game is imbalanced.
Personally, given the newness of this game and pure unbiased statistics I find it really hard to take Idra's side on this. In fact, I can only imagine other Zerg players taking Idra's side because they are the only ones with the opportunity to uncover all the unknown variables in this game.
Incontrol vs Tyler is way easier to break down.
It's a case of misunderstanding.
Tyler's argument
1. Tyler believes that Teamliquid's forums is TL's house. Indeed it probably is.
2. A "newcomer" to the TL forum from EG comes in and announces a team tournament on TL.
3. TL is notably absent from the tournament.
4. When asked why, the EG representative says "We invited them, and they declined."
5. There are a variety of reasons why TL declined the tournament. Tyler believes that EG's comment implies something negative towards TL. He takes additional offense that EG made this comment on the TL forums, ie in TL's own turf. Thus, the retaliation and his request that when making such comments, EG should explain all the details regardless whether or not it paints EG or TL in a negative light.
Incontrol disagrees with Tyler that what EG said implies any negativity. Secondly, he believes they do not have the right to post TL's side of the story because they are not TL. Furthermore, he believes EG or any other team should be allowed to paint their team in a non negative light on TL because it is THE SC community. I do however believe incontrol is in agreement with tyler that no team should be allowed to paint TL's team in a negative light on TL's own forums.
Incontrol and Tyler just interpreted the same thing differently with different sets of values.
Seriously, these 2 things were not interesting to listen to, but hey better than work.
I like your post a lot. I disagree that they were not interesting to listen to, but that is more of a personal preference. Anyways, cool post :-).
|
Did they get 20k viewers?
|
On May 04 2011 16:48 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:38 Pebbz wrote:
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? What? I never claimed a robo was forced when a Protoss 4-gates. I said that a Protoss who is 4-gating has no more scouting information than a Zerg without lair. Your entire argument is based on the idea that Zerg somehow lacks the scouting ability of Protoss because getting a robo is standard and so every Protoss has access to observers. Yet every Zerg build on the planet except all-ins gets a lair - so lair is also standard. Your point therefore makes no sense. Zergs can get overseers at around the same time as Protoss gets observers, but current Zerg builds do not because they stay on hatch for a long ass time. Zergs apparently feel that their best chance right now is to go blind greed - and then wonder why they lose to coin-flips. That makes no sense. If you're going to bitch about not being able to scout, then bitch about it correctly and illustrate exactly why Zerg cannot but stay on hatch for the first 8 minutes of the game.
On May 04 2011 16:46 Clog wrote:
I've been reading your posts, and you really don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.
There is a build called 3 gate expand in which you build sentries. In this build, you have the option of researching Hallucination, which is an upgrade from the Cybernetics Core. It gives your sentries an ability that can be used for scouting. When going for this scouting ability, it works out that you are in fact able to get scouting in as your Nexus is going up, which is before you really commit to a mid-game strategy. This is, of course, under the assumption that a one-base all in is, in fact, not a mid-game strategy, but an early-game strategy that, other than in PvP, is often intended to end the game immediately, and even in PvP, transitions into other builds that are the mid-game strategy you are talking about.
The mention of "if you 4 gate against someone who is prepared against it you basically lose" is in fact completely obvious and far and away irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Being prepared for it, or other all ins, is the key. Either you blindly counter it, or you react to it. To react to seeing someone your opponent is doing implies some sort of scouting has occurred. Which is what the whole point of this discussion is.
IdrA is mostly pissed about the combination of difficult scouting for zerg early game (and the easy scouting, speed overlords, comes after things like scans and hallucination, which is easy scouting for the other 2 races), the unreliability of reactionary static defense (spine crawler build time), and the inability to use excess units made in defense towards counterattacking (zerglings and roaches don't do well against wall-ins, bunkers, or force fields).
This man said it wonderfully. There is nothing more I would add to this.
|
On May 04 2011 16:44 GhostFall wrote:
Day9's Argument
2a. (Starcraft specific) If this optimal set of choices does not include equality among race choice, the game can be said to be imbalanced.
This is not what I understood Day9's argument to be; rather, he was making a distinction between the definition of imbalance and game design.
On a previous page I wrote the following:
+ Show Spoiler +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.
Did I miss something?
|
Dunno aint to good to say something about Idras comment on the balance nor am I good enough to give a solution. But I'd admit it interesting that I've haven't heard/seen a pro Zerg yet that thinks everything is fine with zerg really.
Only one good / pro I've seen that stayed to the matter that zerg is fine seems to be spanishiwa, dont know if he is a total progamer yet or just a super good player.
But then again, statements about a race someone plays certainly comes along with either a lot or less bias, but it's always there.
|
On May 04 2011 16:50 Coolwhip wrote:
Did they get 20k viewers?
Yes. Around 20k even or 20.5k when I checked.
|
Is there any way to download the video file or an MP3 of it?
|
On May 04 2011 16:46 Clog wrote:
I've been reading your posts, and you really don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.
There is a build called 3 gate expand in which you build sentries. In this build, you have the option of researching Hallucination, which is an upgrade from the Cybernetics Core. It gives your sentries an ability that can be used for scouting. When going for this scouting ability, it works out that you are in fact able to get scouting in as your Nexus is going up, which is before you really commit to a mid-game strategy. This is, of course, under the assumption that a one-base all in is, in fact, not a mid-game strategy, but an early-game strategy that, other than in PvP, is often intended to end the game immediately, and even in PvP, transitions into other builds that are the mid-game strategy you are talking about.
The mention of "if you 4 gate against someone who is prepared against it you basically lose" is in fact completely obvious and far and away irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Being prepared for it, or other all ins, is the key. Either you blindly counter it, or you react to it. To react to seeing someone your opponent is doing implies some sort of scouting has occurred. Which is what the whole point of this discussion is.
IdrA is mostly pissed about the combination of difficult scouting for zerg early game (and the easy scouting, speed overlords, comes after things like scans and hallucination, which is easy scouting for the other 2 races), the unreliability of reactionary static defense (spine crawler build time), and the inability to use excess units made in defense towards counterattacking (zerglings and roaches don't do well against wall-ins, bunkers, or force fields).
1. First of all, your definition of a mid-game commitment is incredibly flawed. 3 gate expand is a macro build, especially if you let the nexus finish instead of cancel into 5 gate. It is therefore a mid-game commitment. Protoss have plenty of non-3-gate expand builds that lead into mid-games. Forge expand. DT expand. Sentry contain (against Terran). Robo expand (against Terran). The list goes on. All of them transition into mid-games and all of them lead to similar unit compositions. All you're saying is that Protoss have a safe build; this implies nothing about the ability to scout since the very safety of 3 gate expand comes from the fact that you don't need to scout until the mid-game.
2. You're not reading the context of the 4 gate discussion. The point is that 4 gate is a blind all-in in PvZ, just like any number of roach ling all-ins. You can't scout a Zerg doing a roach ling all-in off of two bases if the Zerg is moving his zerglings around the map, like he should. By the same token, Zerg cannot scout a 4 gate if the Protoss is hiding his buildings. Both are coin-flips.
3. My comments are towards the idea that Z doesn't have the scouting ability of T and P. If you read my posts then you realize this. I make no comments as to whether Zerg is a more reactionary race than T and P.
|
On May 04 2011 16:47 Jiddra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:42 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:34 Jiddra 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. 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. No, sometimes you need to say something. It would be strange, and seem silly, to not answer the question. So a simple answer stating the facts, without any details, is the correct respons. Behind the scenes EG should then contact TL and check if they want to explain the reasons by themself or if they should explain the thing more in detail togheter. This is such a non issuie really, big money is joining a forum culture.
Hmm.. I guess it speaks to the nature of these forums and how, immediately after EG's statement there were a ton of people who saw it before TL could respond. I also don't think its a big issue at all I'm just trying to figure out what would have been optimal. But I still don't see how saying "TL was invited but declined due to unresolvable server issues" is in any way inferior to what colbi said. Do you honestly think that puts too many words in TL's mouth?
|
|
|
On May 04 2011 16:46 Clog 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've been reading your posts, and you really don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about. There is a build called 3 gate expand in which you build sentries. In this build, you have the option of researching Hallucination, which is an upgrade from the Cybernetics Core. It gives your sentries an ability that can be used for scouting. When going for this scouting ability, it works out that you are in fact able to get scouting in as your Nexus is going up, which is before you really commit to a mid-game strategy. This is, of course, under the assumption that a one-base all in is, in fact, not a mid-game strategy, but an early-game strategy that, other than in PvP, is often intended to end the game immediately, and even in PvP, transitions into other builds that are the mid-game strategy you are talking about. The mention of "if you 4 gate against someone who is prepared against it you basically lose" is in fact completely obvious and far and away irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Being prepared for it, or other all ins, is the key. Either you blindly counter it, or you react to it. To react to seeing someone your opponent is doing implies some sort of scouting has occurred. Which is what the whole point of this discussion is. IdrA is mostly pissed about the combination of difficult scouting for zerg early game (and the easy scouting, speed overlords, comes after things like scans and hallucination, which is easy scouting for the other 2 races), the unreliability of reactionary static defense (spine crawler build time), and the inability to use excess units made in defense towards counterattacking (zerglings and roaches don't do well against wall-ins, bunkers, or force fields).
Speed overlords + lair takes less total time than hallucination (assuming warp gate first) bar max chronoboost on both. Lair timing does factor in, but the margin here is 80 seconds pre-patch and 100 seconds post-patch (with no chrono). It costs slightly more total (250/200 vs. 150/150) but also doesn't require a sentry to be out or any travel time, assuming you have overlords in the vicinity.
Is the answer rushing to overlord speed? Hell, I don't know. But it used to be it was ridiculous to suggest even getting hallucination, even in the aftermath of the buff. Now it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
