|
Good show today, even if it was a little out of control at times. Hope to see more guests like Tasteless on future shows. Also, please don't stress so much about the overlay, it becomes distracting at points how much it bothers you!!
|
On May 04 2011 17:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:46 Clog 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'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.
Fast lair into fast OV speed is extremely dangerous for zerg, if something like a 4gate comes you are fucked.
Getting fast hallucination and scans is not dangerous at all.
|
On May 04 2011 16:59 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:47 Jiddra wrote: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?
I think that the server issue is just an invite to speculation, as a non answer is also an invite to speculation in very wrong paths. EG must prioritize to stop wrong info about the tournament, like that they didn't give liquid an invite.
It is better to say that a invite was declined by liquid. As a tournament you should not need to say any more, the team should own that communication with the teams fans.
|
Day9 mentioned that in any game, a balanced strategy will emerge. I didn't see anyone mention this -- he basically described the Nash Equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
In game theory, Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
Stated simply, Amy and Phil are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Phil's decision, and Phil is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, a group of players is in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g., competing businesses forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).
Day9 is right that the game doesn't have to be "balanced" for the players to have a "balanced" set of strategies, since it's an ever-changing field.
|
The Tyler/InControl Argument
I just wanted to raise a cold-blooded point that Team Liquid (the site and the team) can't make.
The reality is, that while Team Liquid is a open and public SC2 Community, it has grown into so much more. They are the site for SC2 news, events and analysis. They host tournaments, have sponsors, and their own team.
I can understand EG's decision to not make special concessions for one team. And Tyler's point about consulting with all teams before organizing a tournament might be a little idealistic, and impractical.
However, Team Liquid is more than just a team. It's a significant community stakeholder, that has incredible influence over the SC2 fan base. In fact, it helped build the e-sports community from the ground up, has an insanely loyal and creative following, and can torpedo the prospects of any SC2 business venture that smells funny.
From purely a business or marketing perspective, it would be prudent for any SC2-related tournament to consult, and try to accommodate Team Liquid, if it wanted to guarantee a substantial and loyal viewership.
And perhaps Team Liquid should start thinking like a business and start leveraging the incredible social capital they've built. If EG had a online community with a 100,000+ visitors, they would do the same.
While I agree and understand EG's ultimate decision, I can hardly blame Team Liquid for trying to flex their muscles. In fact, they should do it more.
|
EG Master league discussion starting
As ready as i can be  let's see what's the hype is all about
|
On May 04 2011 17:08 SmoKim wrote:EG Master league discussion starting As ready as i can be let's see what's the hype is all about
Two bags of popcorn required 
|
On May 04 2011 17:03 Jiddra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 16:59 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:47 Jiddra wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think that the server issue is just an invite to speculation, as a non answer is also an invite to speculation in very wrong paths. EG must prioritize to stop wrong info about the tournament, like that they didn't give liquid an invite. It is better to say that a invite was declined by liquid. As a tournament you should not need to say any more, the team should own that communication with the teams fans.
You feel that the adding the part about the unresolvable issue invites more speculation than just saying they declined the invite? I fail to see a universe in which the possible inferences from the suggested modified statement as a whole are more negative than the possible inferences from the actual statement...
|
On May 04 2011 17:02 Mailing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 17:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 04 2011 16:46 Clog 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:
[quote]
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. Fast lair into fast OV speed is extremely dangerous for zerg, if something like a 4gate comes you are fucked. Getting fast hallucination and scans is not dangerous at all.
Yeah, but the timing differences aren't some giant gulf of impossibility. It's about an in-game minute in the time it takes for you to get them up. The issue isn't "can Zerg get overlord speed to counter hallucination" because you don't need to counter it. The issue is "does overlord speed allowing scouting at a similar time to hallucination" and it does, as far as I can tell, unless you commit a lot of economy and tech to powering out the cybercore upgrades.
Also, scans leaves you vulnerable to those nasty little hidden dark shrines in TvP and off-center tech in TvZ, it does have a risk element. It also bites into your production. Hallucinations can chop into your force field count by 2. They're probably safer than a hyperfast lair, etc., but "not dangerous at all" is a little bit of an exaggeration.
|
On May 04 2011 17:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:
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.
A sacrificial overseer is usually sufficient for scouting the tech of an opponent. Same speed as an overlord with speed, but no research required. Can be gotten 17 seconds after lair finishes.
|
|
|
Idra is such a child, by his reasoning, if a protoss player wins its because protoss is OP if a zerg player wins it is because he is a vastly superior player to the protoss. Idra should look at the statistics for recent tournament results, im sure hed have some backwards explanation for it, for the past 2 months in all major non korean tournaments zergs have been beating protoss almost 10% more than protoss have been beating zergs in the zvp matchup in February it was in protoss's favor but it isnt february anymore and the meta game has shifted it was only a 2 month period were protoss had an advantage over zerg in tournaments and now zerg has had that same advantage for a 2 month period yet you dont hear every protoss screaming imbalance like zergs do.
Idra acts like such a child and he just spews words out of his ass when it comes to balance. Like for instance the fact that overlords cant scout, thats pretty bs do terran and protoss's set up units at every angle of their base there is no way a well placed overlord shouldnt make it into the base and see what is going on especially later on in the game when players dont keep their units in their base and overseer speed is up. But even in the early game there are so few units out that it takes a while to kill an overlord and it should see most of what is in the base. that + poking the ramp should give you a pretty good idea of whats going on.
Hes just so stubborn and ignorant when it comes to talks about balance and every zerg listens to every word he says like its gospel. zergs look at tournament results in the past 2 months if the results were still in protoss's favor it would give zergs even more of a reason to qq but they arent in fact it is quite the opposite, do you hear any protoss qq'ing about the matchup though? no you dont because we dont listen to a small group of players who instead of trying to figure out new strategies just complain complain complain even if they win against protoss it was just a coin flip or luck it has nothing to do with balance, but if they lose well its just because protoss is OP
I find that train of thought to be complete and utter shit.
Edit: also for the korean tournament results its even more skewed in zergs favor as of recent but its a smaller sample so its less relevant.
|
If i had to choose between waiting for Day9's Nash equilibrium to arrive, or Idra's 'being proactive and analysing potential imbalance and then fixing it' i'd lean toward the latter.
I really like Day's train of thought, but this is meant to be a professional e sport with big dollars on the line etc. There's a lot more at stake here to just wait for a balanced meta game arrive. That could take for fucking ever.
I'd like to see some legit debate between Idra and someone else at some point on Zerg imbalance. So far whenever Idra is on, it always ends up as him vs Day9, and Day just doesn't entertain the former's viewpoint at all. It's such a waste of time. Likewise the protoss buddies are pretty useless when it comes to the same topic so all we get is Idra 'venting' and its just not constructive.
No one has the balls to actually debate with him.
In that sense i feel kinda robbed. Like instead of a legit debate between Idra and someone about early zerg scouting / defense / pressure etc we get a philisophical cockblock. And with the Tyler Geoff shitfest we got almost no discussion on the actual pertinent issue, which should be lag in online tournaments.
We got some good Jerry Springer action though, if that's what you like.
I prefer Tyler's 15 minute monologues over that though. They're enlightening. It's a shame the chat doesn't agree. No idea why they dislike Tyler's wisdom so much. Dude is easily smartest on the panel. Too much protoss hate? Wouldn't surprise me.
|
On May 04 2011 17:13 Executor1 wrote:
Idra is such a child, by his reasoning, if a protoss player wins its because protoss is OP if a zerg player wins it is because he is a vastly superior player to the protoss. Idra should look at the statistics for recent tournament results, im sure hed have some backwards explanation for it, for the past 2 months in all major non korean tournaments zergs have been beating protoss almost 10% more than protoss have been beating zergs in the zvp matchup in February it was in protoss's favor but it isnt february anymore and the meta game has shifted it was only a 2 month period were protoss had an advantage over zerg in tournaments and now zerg has had that same advantage for a 2 month period yet you dont hear every protoss screaming imbalance like zergs do.
Idra acts like such a child and he just spews words out of his ass when it comes to balance. Like for instance the fact that overlords cant scout, thats pretty bs do terran and protoss's set up units at every angle of their base there is no way a well placed overlord shouldnt make it into the base and see what is going on especially later on in the game when players dont keep their units in their base and overseer speed is up. But even in the early game there are so few units out that it takes a while to kill an overlord and it should see most of what is in the base. that + poking the ramp should give you a pretty good idea of whats going on.
Hes just so stubborn and ignorant when it comes to talks about balance and every zerg listens to every word he says like its gospel. zergs look at tournament results in the past 2 months if the results were still in protoss's favor it would give zergs even more of a reason to qq but they arent in fact it is quite the opposite, do you hear any protoss qq'ing about the matchup though? no you dont because we dont listen to a small group of players who instead of trying to figure out new strategies just complain complain complain even if they win against protoss it was just a coin flip or luck it has nothing to do with balance, but if they lose well its just because protoss is OP
I find that train of thought to be complete and utter shit.
I think you are the child for not listening to his argument and then trashtalking him this way.
He never said that when the zerg win he is always vastly superior to his protoss opponent, he is saying that if both are using standard builds, then the zerg is a better player. On the other hand, if the zerg want to have a good chance of winning against a decent protoss, he must use coinflip build : thus winning or loosing will never have anything to do with who is the better player, but more like who is the luckiest player.
|
On May 04 2011 17:10 Zeri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 17:03 Jiddra wrote:On May 04 2011 16:59 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:47 Jiddra wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think that the server issue is just an invite to speculation, as a non answer is also an invite to speculation in very wrong paths. EG must prioritize to stop wrong info about the tournament, like that they didn't give liquid an invite. It is better to say that a invite was declined by liquid. As a tournament you should not need to say any more, the team should own that communication with the teams fans. You feel that the adding the part about the unresolvable issue invites more speculation than just saying they declined the invite? I fail to see a universe in which the possible inferences from the suggested modified statement as a whole are more negative than the possible inferences from the actual statement...
If you look at the thread, the most negative reactions came after Tyler'ss post not after Colbi's. Saying something in the style of "they chose to decline" is open enough for some people (like myself) not feeling we have enough to go on to have either a positive or negative reaction while stating it is because "unresolvable server issues" could lead to more arguing the subject mentioned. What unresolved server issues? Why can they play in other tournaments cross servers and not this? What exactly is unresolved about it? And so on. I feel the first statement of Colbi was reasonable and open enough to give team liquid a chance to explain why they chose not to participate.
The best thing would probably have been to ask if TL if they wanted to make a statement with the tournament announcement since it should have been obvious people would wonder.
|
the problem with this sort of thinking is that sometimes games will essentially always come down to chance because that's how the game works.
however i agree that idra makes the argument (in a special way) that a good player should be able to know when the coin is being flipped and at least increase his chances of the coin turning up in his favour. being able to completely shut down scouting is like your opponent using a weighted coin. you could always blind counter like against obvious cheese and extremely powerful all-ins but fuck that shit.
|
|
|
You dont need fast overlord speed to scout early game no player is going to have that many units out and usually before the 4 gates go up say your doing 4 gate you have about 1 stalker out, are you telling me you cant get into the base and see whats going on before 1 stalker kills your overlord, whoever thinks that must have terrible overlord control or something.
Sure there is a chance you wont see it i guess, but there are other ways of telling including poking at the ramp to see army composition if you see lots of sentries your most likely safe if you see lots of stalkers and zealots get up some damn spines.
Honestly its almost like saying " protoss never has a chance to scout terran because they can put turret parameters around their base" thats pretty much what idra was saying but he was replacing it with units, your not going to have units at every angle to your base, find an unlikely angle and send in your OV your gonna probably see pretty much everything as more than likely if you scout at the right time they will have 1 stalker up, usually you get 1 stalker 1 zealot then put up 4 gates say your going for 4 gate.
|
On May 04 2011 17:18 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 17:10 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 17:03 Jiddra wrote:On May 04 2011 16:59 Zeri wrote:On May 04 2011 16:47 Jiddra wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I think that the server issue is just an invite to speculation, as a non answer is also an invite to speculation in very wrong paths. EG must prioritize to stop wrong info about the tournament, like that they didn't give liquid an invite. It is better to say that a invite was declined by liquid. As a tournament you should not need to say any more, the team should own that communication with the teams fans. You feel that the adding the part about the unresolvable issue invites more speculation than just saying they declined the invite? I fail to see a universe in which the possible inferences from the suggested modified statement as a whole are more negative than the possible inferences from the actual statement... If you look at the thread, the most negative reactions came after Tyler'ss post not after Colbi's. Saying something in the style of "they chose to decline" is open enough for some people (like myself) not feeling we have enough to go on to have either a positive or negative reaction while stating it is because "unresolvable server issues" could lead to more arguing the subject mentioned. What unresolved server issues? Why can they play in other tournaments cross servers and not this? What exactly is unresolved about it? And so on. I feel the first statement of Colbi was reasonable and open enough to give team liquid a chance to explain why they chose not to participate.
The first statement of colbi is what caused the reaction from tyler because it did not cover TL. All the speculations you propose are better than the ones that arise from saying "tl declined" because the speculations that arise are: why? do they not like EG? does EG not like them? whos fault is it? that last one is the key one. By saying there was an unresolvable issues suggests that there were negotiations and that there was a mutual agreement. and the second statement eliminates the "blame" aspect of any of it. Which set tyler off in the first place..
|
I feel for IdrA. Day9 can say whatever he wants, but the fact is that his livelihood isn't being effected negatively by imbalance. It's easy for Day9 to say that it isn't worth talking about because his next paycheck doesn't rely on tournament wins.
That said, it does suck to have this come up so often on SotG. You can see Incontrol's frustration through the debate as he's no doubt heard the whole routine a hundred times. I'm not saying balance shouldn't be discussed, but does it have to take up 30+ minutes of every show?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
