|
On May 04 2011 19:58 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 19:45 dtz wrote:On May 04 2011 18:34 Executor1 wrote:On May 04 2011 18:27 Rabiator wrote:
IdrA rages on about the "general character of the race". If he doesnt like that he should just change races. In any case the argument that Banelings cant be used offensively is ridiculous. Baneling can easily get rid of any wall-ins he complains about, but apparently Greg isnt allowed to do that. The whole point is that IdrA cant play the game in the style he wants and thats what he is complaining about.
Also the "I should win against those players" argument simply is bad and terribly arrogant. Yep this is what ive been trying to say, im glad to see some like minded people finally joining in on the discussion. Yea when he said that zerg have no offensive builds i just chuckled and it made me realise how ignorant he can be sometimes. Honestly im tired of hearing him complain and the amount of people that take what he says at face value, he should just switch races and be done with it. Maybe its just a publicity stunt though i really cant see anyone being that ignorant >< Agree. I think he thought / expected zerg to be the passive macro race at the beginning which is why he picked it. When recent trends and developments show that it's not totally true ie zerg has to be more active because they have the best midgame production capability as well as lacklustre late game, he feels unhappy because it does not fit his "philosophy" Most probably, the real complain that idra has whether he realize it or not is not that zerg has a fundamental problem but that idra has a problem with the way zerg is played. It does not suit him / he does not feel totally comfortable to be the one who dictates aggression. And now it's too late for him to change race because too many things need to be re-learned. So what he is trying to do is to change zerg to a race that fits his true style/mindset. That's not really balance problem. The debate that took place was a game design complaint mostly. And he was referring to how standard play in early game zerg is reactionary and passive. Arguing otherwise is stupid. You have to expand as zerg and the only aggressive 2 base builds only work when you are 100% positive your opponent is expanding and they are generally low drone count all ins which depend heavily on your opponent being overly greedy.
You're only describing the state of the metagame NOW. There's no way you can prove any of that to be fundamentally correct. You can't conclude anything based on current standard play (like what, 1 year after release and just a month or two since the last significant patch?), because current standard play is very unlikely to be "right" or as near perfect as possible.
Besides, we're reaching a point in the game where players of every race have to expand reasonably fast in most match-ups (except one) to have any hope of staying in the game.
The only match-up in which one base play should be considered a balance or design issue at this point is PvP, and to a lesser extent ZvZ. In all other matchups it's pretty much settled into exactly what it's supposed to be - dangerous and risky strategy that is a lot more likely to fail and be defended than work against better opponents.
Implementing a way in which the said all-ins can be completely negated by scouting or some foolproof build WILL NOT HAPPEN. If that's what somebody wants, you may as well stop complaining and holding your breath now, because I just can't see Blizzard ever treating that as an "issue" that needs to be "fixed". If you play Starcraft, you will always have to deal with risks and dangers of unscouted and unexpected aggression.
|
they dont talk about spine crawler changes in zvz because they dont matter. just like 4 gate,there would probably be ways to punish it. even if not ,both players have exactly the same tools and the better player will win most of the times.
besides that, there has not been a real argument about spine crawlers,it was just an example of making it possible for zerg to actually react and not having to prepare in advance for everything and especially not having to commit fully to it.
no1 said it was the perfect way of doing it,just a possibility that would at least help.
|
I mostly agree with IdrA, he's the only one making rational arguments.
When I watched his recent ZvPs and read the LR threads I was surprised to see so many people saying that IdrA's figured out ZvP or something when he did lots of random all-ins, and regarding the last game vs KiWi specifically KiWi definitely threw that game away but people were still saying he lost because of the drops of something. It would've been like Mondragon vs Cruncher if KiWi had just turtled for a bit longer.
|
On May 04 2011 20:18 hugman wrote:
I mostly agree with IdrA, he's the only one making rational arguments.
When I watched his recent ZvPs and read the LR threads I was surprised to see so many people saying that IdrA's figured out ZvP or something when he did lots of random all-ins, and regarding the last game vs KiWi specifically KiWi definitely threw that game away but people were still saying he lost because of the drops of something. It would've been like Mondragon vs Cruncher if KiWi had just turtled for a bit longer.
http://i.imgur.com/FVhM9.png
statistics speak for themselves 
this includes all major foreign tournaments in the last 6 months.
I dont see how saying if a zerg wins playing standard its because hes a better player, but if a protoss wins playing standard its because of imbalance is a very rational argument.
|
On May 04 2011 20:05 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 19:54 nehcnhoj wrote:
I hate to start a constructive argument without watching the entirety of the episode just in case relevant points were brought up in a later segment, but I have to write this down before I lose my train of thought.
In response to Tyler's argument against Idra's principles of how a good game should go, Tyler brought up the fact that Protoss do a coin flip, and Idra is expecting to win by generally not taking a risk on his part and still come out at least even. However, I believe, this stems back to IdrA's initial point with regards to scouting. Toss are so inclined to take a coin flip, because it is so easy to pull off based off the issue that a Zerg plays with close to no information. If Zerg makes any coinflip what-so-ever, whether it be in response or if the Zerg makes the first move. This is (i want to say easily) easier and within much more reasonable means for a toss to scout the coin flip than a Zerg to scout the Toss.
So then, if we're comparing balance in terms of coin flips, which as agreed on the show, is absolutely terrible game design, even then I believe it's a weighted coin, in favor of the toss. I feel IdrA is having so high a rate of success with his risky plays because, as he said, nobody expects it from him. In an ideal world, where PvZ was played and two equal players did risky builds, scouted to the best of their abilities, my opinion is that P would win that BO7 grand finals.
And this is only PvZ.
I wish more concrete in-game examples of coin flips done were made so this argument could have more substance than just speculative points.
Please take this as my 2 cents, I'm not at the level nor do I invest enough time and effort to fight this argument as equals, but this is my opinion =).
Amazing show as usual. I did a test in the unit tester earlier on in this thread with overlord scout vs a stalker and an overlord scout vs 2 marines. here is what i found vs the stalker, obviously this is subjective, but i did the tests using the best possible situation for the protoss here is what i found :"Okay i just did a test on the unit tester using the platform in the middle as "the base" I used the best possible scenario for the stalker assuming the player noticed right away and the stalker was right in position and hit the overlord just as he was approaching the ledge. The platform in the unit tester is easily as big as a normal base if not slightly bigger than some like xelnaga caverns. So the stalker hits maybe 4 in game seconds before the overlord reaches the ledge this is assuming the best possible situation as unless you are standing right on the ledge or very close to it in the right position you will not see the overlord until it has passed the ledge. It took 27 in game seconds to kill the overlord and by that time it had completely scouted the entire platform except for 2 small corners (not enough space to fit a building without being seen)" besides the fact that you have to sac an overlord i see no reason why a properly timed scout shouldnt give you the information you need to decide what to do next in the mid early game. Also this is assuming a stalker is made after the zealot i would say its far more common to see a sentry in zvp and sentries do considerably less damage even if there were 2 you would likely be in the same situation if not better and get a full scout of the base.
2 marines will kill an overlord when it is overhead.
2 sentries, or 1 stalker will kill an overlord about 3 seconds after passing overhead.
You will see the overlord before it is even in range, because unless you are a bronze, you place your supply depots/pylons for vision, and your units for overlord denial.
oh, and edit: how does a stalker take 27 seconds to kill a stalker, when a stalker does 10 dps to overlords, and overlords have 200 hp...
|
The debates were nice, but alot of the uncomfortable vibe is due to JP not moderating these discussions. I felt JP should've cut guys off at many times, and kept them from talking over each other.
1. addressing zerg's need for a better blind defense
Blizzard should give the option for creep crawlers for 75minerals which take 35sec to build, then you can morph into spine or spore crawlers for another 75minerals and 35sec. This way zerg can either take a risky defense of waiting and building a spine/spore crawler in 50sec after they scout the push, or they can take a safer approach for more money with a creep crawler.
2. eg v tl
inControl and idra were correct about eg just making a factual statement. Tyler's response wasn't logically solid because they sort've went in too many directions, but his sentiment is completely understandable. Here's 2 responses.
1) EG invited TL and TL declined.
2) EG invited TL, however due to TL members being worldwide, they felt certain accommodations were needed and had to decline.
Both are factual, both allow TL to respond. But the first response lacks any tact, and may invite many more people to question TL about their decision. Now this isn't necessarily a big deal, but it can rub some people the wrong way, and it did so with Tyler. I think Tyler felt as if EG was putting TL in a position to have to defend their decision, when EG could've prevented with a few extra sentences.
Also, inControl won that debate hands down, but when he brought up Stride Gum, it was just another example of a lack of tactfulness, that originally rubbed Tyler as wrong. He didn't need to go there to make his point, but inControl just decided to ramp it up to another level.
edit: edited my numbers allowing for a more diverse zerg defense to combat the diverse terran offense.
|
So Idra always wants to win against every player who takes risks without taking risks himself and without playing better. Additional to that every top zerg is 10000 times better than the top protoss and top terran players. GREAT!
I hope they stop with this balance discussions.
|
Is the pregame going to be uploaded too? I can see the episode 37 but no pregame 
|
On May 04 2011 20:16 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 19:58 billyX333 wrote:On May 04 2011 19:45 dtz wrote:On May 04 2011 18:34 Executor1 wrote:On May 04 2011 18:27 Rabiator wrote:
IdrA rages on about the "general character of the race". If he doesnt like that he should just change races. In any case the argument that Banelings cant be used offensively is ridiculous. Baneling can easily get rid of any wall-ins he complains about, but apparently Greg isnt allowed to do that. The whole point is that IdrA cant play the game in the style he wants and thats what he is complaining about.
Also the "I should win against those players" argument simply is bad and terribly arrogant. Yep this is what ive been trying to say, im glad to see some like minded people finally joining in on the discussion. Yea when he said that zerg have no offensive builds i just chuckled and it made me realise how ignorant he can be sometimes. Honestly im tired of hearing him complain and the amount of people that take what he says at face value, he should just switch races and be done with it. Maybe its just a publicity stunt though i really cant see anyone being that ignorant >< Agree. I think he thought / expected zerg to be the passive macro race at the beginning which is why he picked it. When recent trends and developments show that it's not totally true ie zerg has to be more active because they have the best midgame production capability as well as lacklustre late game, he feels unhappy because it does not fit his "philosophy" Most probably, the real complain that idra has whether he realize it or not is not that zerg has a fundamental problem but that idra has a problem with the way zerg is played. It does not suit him / he does not feel totally comfortable to be the one who dictates aggression. And now it's too late for him to change race because too many things need to be re-learned. So what he is trying to do is to change zerg to a race that fits his true style/mindset. That's not really balance problem. The debate that took place was a game design complaint mostly. And he was referring to how standard play in early game zerg is reactionary and passive. Arguing otherwise is stupid. You have to expand as zerg and the only aggressive 2 base builds only work when you are 100% positive your opponent is expanding and they are generally low drone count all ins which depend heavily on your opponent being overly greedy. Implementing a way in which the said all-ins can be completely negated by scouting or some foolproof build WILL NOT HAPPEN. If that's what somebody wants, you may as well stop complaining and holding your breath now, because I just can't see Blizzard ever treating that as an "issue" that needs to be "fixed". If you play Starcraft, you will always have to deal with risks and dangers of unscouted and unexpected aggression.
Currently, There is never a time I lose to an all-in in BW where I say to myself, "wow, that was unscoutable. That looks identical to standard play" All-ins in BW were significantly more risky because your first drone scout generally reveals your opponents early game plans. In sc2, the semblance of many all ins don't even begin to manifest until long after the first drone is killed. 2 rax pressure into expand can look identical to 4-6rax all in. 3gate expand can't be distinguished from a 4gate or phoenix opening. Sounds like poker to me with players balancing their valuebet/bluffing ranges. A T/P player who disguises his all ins with his standard play is going to be far more dangerous in tournament settings. This turns starcraft 2's early game into a game driven by psychology and guessing (poker).
Zerg all ins can't really be disguised until after speed upgrade for lings finish which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Protoss and terran can always play safe and generally know whats going on if they dont immediately lose their scv/probe scout. Zerg's first drone scout generally reveals very little if your opponent is attempting to disguise an all-in.
This is generally how i understood the flaws discussed in game design in the zerg matchups. Their discussion during this sotg was specifically excluding standard safe play vs standard safe play
|
On May 04 2011 20:23 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 20:18 hugman wrote:
I mostly agree with IdrA, he's the only one making rational arguments.
When I watched his recent ZvPs and read the LR threads I was surprised to see so many people saying that IdrA's figured out ZvP or something when he did lots of random all-ins, and regarding the last game vs KiWi specifically KiWi definitely threw that game away but people were still saying he lost because of the drops of something. It would've been like Mondragon vs Cruncher if KiWi had just turtled for a bit longer. http://i.imgur.com/FVhM9.pngstatistics speak for themselves this includes all major foreign tournaments in the last 6 months. I dont see how saying if a zerg wins playing standard its because hes a better player, but if a protoss wins playing standard its because of imbalance is a very rational argument.
Statistics are worthless if you don't look into the actual game or matchup afterward. (statistics do NOT speak for themselves, not alone).
|
If IdrA were a better player he would make the switch to Protoss or Terran.
|
My throught on:
Thor-imba? No use VR in the mix and thor will autotarget them and the toss gateway army kill the terran.
Idra vs day9 discussion: Both have valied point. Idra however def. had the better arguments, and it did not help day9 case that he trolls. However we cant prove any race is imba by saying race x is imba. We would need replays from idra to illustrate when you cant defend reactively.
Tyler vs incontrol. I agree with Tyler most of the time, but his views are absolutely wrong here. End of discssion.
|
Did you guys got the 20k viewers?
|
On May 04 2011 20:45 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 20:16 Talin wrote:On May 04 2011 19:58 billyX333 wrote:On May 04 2011 19:45 dtz wrote:On May 04 2011 18:34 Executor1 wrote:On May 04 2011 18:27 Rabiator wrote:
IdrA rages on about the "general character of the race". If he doesnt like that he should just change races. In any case the argument that Banelings cant be used offensively is ridiculous. Baneling can easily get rid of any wall-ins he complains about, but apparently Greg isnt allowed to do that. The whole point is that IdrA cant play the game in the style he wants and thats what he is complaining about.
Also the "I should win against those players" argument simply is bad and terribly arrogant. Yep this is what ive been trying to say, im glad to see some like minded people finally joining in on the discussion. Yea when he said that zerg have no offensive builds i just chuckled and it made me realise how ignorant he can be sometimes. Honestly im tired of hearing him complain and the amount of people that take what he says at face value, he should just switch races and be done with it. Maybe its just a publicity stunt though i really cant see anyone being that ignorant >< Agree. I think he thought / expected zerg to be the passive macro race at the beginning which is why he picked it. When recent trends and developments show that it's not totally true ie zerg has to be more active because they have the best midgame production capability as well as lacklustre late game, he feels unhappy because it does not fit his "philosophy" Most probably, the real complain that idra has whether he realize it or not is not that zerg has a fundamental problem but that idra has a problem with the way zerg is played. It does not suit him / he does not feel totally comfortable to be the one who dictates aggression. And now it's too late for him to change race because too many things need to be re-learned. So what he is trying to do is to change zerg to a race that fits his true style/mindset. That's not really balance problem. The debate that took place was a game design complaint mostly. And he was referring to how standard play in early game zerg is reactionary and passive. Arguing otherwise is stupid. You have to expand as zerg and the only aggressive 2 base builds only work when you are 100% positive your opponent is expanding and they are generally low drone count all ins which depend heavily on your opponent being overly greedy. Implementing a way in which the said all-ins can be completely negated by scouting or some foolproof build WILL NOT HAPPEN. If that's what somebody wants, you may as well stop complaining and holding your breath now, because I just can't see Blizzard ever treating that as an "issue" that needs to be "fixed". If you play Starcraft, you will always have to deal with risks and dangers of unscouted and unexpected aggression. Currently, There is never a time I lose to an all-in in BW where I say to myself, "wow, that was unscoutable. That looks identical to standard play" All-ins in BW were significantly more risky because your first drone scout generally reveals your opponents early game plans. In sc2, the semblance of many all ins don't even begin to manifest until long after the first drone is killed. 2 rax pressure into expand can look identical to 4-6rax all in. 3gate expand can't be distinguished from a 4gate or phoenix opening. Sounds like poker to me with players balancing their valuebet/bluffing ranges. A T/P player who disguises his all ins with his standard play is going to be far more dangerous in tournament settings. This turns starcraft 2's early game into a game driven by psychology and guessing (poker). Zerg all ins can't really be disguised until after speed upgrade for lings finish which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Protoss and terran can always play safe and generally know whats going on if they dont immediately lose their scv/probe scout. Zerg's first drone scout generally reveals very little if your opponent is attempting to disguise an all-in. This is generally how i understood the flaws discussed in game design in the zerg matchups. Their discussion during this sotg was specifically excluding standard safe play vs standard safe play
And even then, the game wasn't perfect. ZvT especially, Terran in BW had like 4 different all in sunken bust timings that hit before a standard 3 hatch muta.
|
On May 04 2011 20:56 Hider wrote:
My throught on:
Thor-imba? No use VR in the mix and thor will autotarget them and the toss gateway army kill the terran.
Idra vs day9 discussion: Both have valied point. Idra however def. had the better arguments, and it did not help day9 case that he trolls. However we cant prove any race is imba by saying race x is imba. We would need replays from idra to illustrate when you cant defend reactively.
Tyler vs incontrol. I agree with Tyler most of the time, but his views are absolutely wrong here. End of discssion.
that wasnt the discussion though. All all-ins can be defended obviously but it requires the necessary information which can be denied. It wasn't about balance it was about game design.
|
On May 04 2011 20:18 hugman wrote:
I mostly agree with IdrA, he's the only one making rational arguments.
When I watched his recent ZvPs and read the LR threads I was surprised to see so many people saying that IdrA's figured out ZvP or something when he did lots of random all-ins, and regarding the last game vs KiWi specifically KiWi definitely threw that game away but people were still saying he lost because of the drops of something. It would've been like Mondragon vs Cruncher if KiWi had just turtled for a bit longer.
roach ling all ins, especially on that map, arent random.
completely standard build
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 04 2011 20:05 Executor1 wrote:
I did a test in the unit tester earlier on in this thread with overlord scout vs a stalker and an overlord scout vs 2 marines.
here is what i found vs the stalker, obviously this is subjective, but i did the tests using the best possible situation for the protoss here is what i found :"Okay i just did a test on the unit tester using the platform in the middle as "the base"
I used the best possible scenario for the stalker assuming the player noticed right away and the stalker was right in position and hit the overlord just as he was approaching the ledge. The platform in the unit tester is easily as big as a normal base if not slightly bigger than some like xelnaga caverns.
So the stalker hits maybe 4 in game seconds before the overlord reaches the ledge this is assuming the best possible situation as unless you are standing right on the ledge or very close to it in the right position you will not see the overlord until it has passed the ledge. It took 27 in game seconds to kill the overlord and by that time it had completely scouted the entire platform except for 2 small corners (not enough space to fit a building without being seen)"
besides the fact that you have to sac an overlord i see no reason why a properly timed scout shouldnt give you the information you need to decide what to do next in the mid early game.
Also this is assuming a stalker is made after the zealot i would say its far more common to see a sentry in zvp and sentries do considerably less damage even if there were 2 you would likely be in the same situation if not better and get a full scout of the base.
I won't contest the 27 seconds, however I do have some issues with the different situations this can happen.
There are 3 situations, where this would be the case.
Firstly, the scout is too early, if there's only 1 stalker there to stop him. It's probably a 4-5min scout.
Secondly, if it's a more effective scout that comes later after the toss has made progress into a specific build, be it coin flip or safe build, there's no way the toss is unable to stop the scout if he's constantly keeping alert to prevent it.
Thirdly, the overlord does manage to scout substantial information, maybe only a stalker is warped in to kill the overlord, by then it's already too late, that the tactic the Protoss has engaged in will kill or do enough damage to the Zerg to put the Toss ahead as the Zerg's reactive measures are just not strong enough if all the guessing he had done up to that point was wrong. It doesn't even have to be an overlord, Nexus cancel anyone? Actually, Anypro v July in GSL Ro16 game 3, 7 gate robo(for observer to counter the most feasible counter against 7 gate(burrow)) +1/+1 off 2base that july scouted with his overlord almost as early as he could hope for, is a pretty good example of my point here.
|
Jesus, it is so difficult to listen to IdrA talk about balance. You could just hear it in his voice when Geoff was asking about Broodwar, the only reason he is holding back is because already there a sense that the game IS balanced and there have been many players from every race succeeding, he knows whatever he says will be met with cognitive dissonance.,
He wants to whine about balance but because he has nothing to prove it with, because he wasn't even a "Code S" player, he has no backbone to go through with it, however the way he delivers his answer he gets across his point he feels it is imbalanced but doesn't actually say what is imbalanced because he knows the moment he goes into that discussion he will be treated like a joke.
But now in SC2, he has taken it upon himself to become this Usurper of what is right and wrong. He is no longer in the shadows of people much better than he is. He talks in absolutes and logical fallacies. When he was talking to Day[9], he straight out says "You can't do X", or "if he does X you lose", what the fuck can you say to that?
It is kinda sicking to see the strange satisfaction he gets with these arguments, he feels as if they are productive yet they achieve nothing other than getting people to agree to what he says. There is no discussion there, he has already come to his own conclusion, it honestly reminds me of this video, where Idra is the Ibex.
If you want to talk about balance you either agree with him or you are wrong, it is sad that no one wants to speak out because they don't feel they are as good at the game as he is and thinks it will ultimately be used against them knows it will be used against them, but not directly...like the way he was putting Day[9] on the spot like that...He didn't choose to reason with him, instead asked for answers to what he believes is wrong and kept drilling away at it over and over and over. He just downplayed or flat out ignored any of the good points Day[9] said stuck to his own rhetoric
|
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
personally i was disgusted that Incontrol/idra kept interrupting Tyler when he was trying to defend himself, as if outnumbering him two to one wasn't enough of an advantage Real classy. Incontrol should show some more respect to his superiors.
I also found it sad that incontrol always resorts to personal attacks and twisting people's words to win arguments and generally being manipulative. Not cool
|
On May 04 2011 20:33 vetinari wrote:
oh, and edit: how does a stalker take 27 seconds to kill a stalker, when a stalker does 10 dps to overlords, and overlords have 200 hp...
Stalker aren't doing 10dps it ~7dps
if you opt for Sentry First it even less ~6dps
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
