On May 04 2011 23:01 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is, Day9 would be 100% right on balance if we were on a different game, a finished and polished game like SC1 for exemple.
Day9 IS right because what he said is a tautology. There's no denying that we are far from a game-theory equilibrium so it's kind of pointless to say that the equilibrium is bad/unsatisfactory because we're not there yet. However that's a mathematician's approach and doesn't really help people that are trying to figure out the game right now; but idra's "game is broken" approach does not help either.
What's the point of your post ? You're just like Day9, I'm talking about the current zerg, the number of units, their potential, and you give me a useless comment about how Day9's argument is an universel unconditionnal truth always valid, which is wrong.
SC2 is not a science.
What? Science is marked specifically by not being tautologous.
You are arguing out of ignorance. The point of the post was that the attitude that the game is broken does not help a player trying to be the best. Additionally, the proposition that the game is broken is false because the state of the game (woah) is not currently such that we have obtained the necessary statistical information coupled with game equilibrium where race statistical discrepancies become apparent and important.
In other words, there is logic behind what Day9 says about players that complain about balance actually 'venting' unknowingly. People can talk about the current trends of the game, but since any strategical equilibrium is yet to be reached that discussion does not touch upon the balance of the actual game beyond shifting trends.
On May 04 2011 23:01 Muffinman53 wrote: So during the most embarrassing moments section, there were references to a lot of BW games that I have never seen (since I didn't play or watch BW). Can anyone find links to the idra command center cancel? That game sounded epic :D And the one where Tasteless made a smiley face with pylons sounded funny too.
I haven't watched that part yet, but it's probably this game Idra's talking about:
Hahaha, i was watching that series with a few of my friends who didnt play SC. I wanted to show them how good BW was as the release of SC2 was approaching. Then that game happened and they all just said the game sucked and stopped caring. Thanks Idra.
Some of the stuff day9 said in that episode was completely incoherent, but I get his point that statistically you should be wary of crying imbalance too fast. His degree in math clearly makes him see the game differently than IdrA, he just doesn't seem to explain his insight very well in their discussions.
I think Day9 also just thinks it isn't productive to complain about. Maybe its imbalanced, but if you are a serious pro gamer, its your job to figure out how to win games. Day9 is simply saying: Spend your time figuring out how to win games - not complaining about balance, because you are wasting your time.
It's easy for Day9 to say this when it's not his career to play the game.
I believe this is one of the more pressing details to take into consideration when Day[9] is fine for it to take years to become a balanced meta game.
On May 04 2011 23:01 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is, Day9 would be 100% right on balance if we were on a different game, a finished and polished game like SC1 for exemple.
Day9 IS right because what he said is a tautology. There's no denying that we are far from a game-theory equilibrium so it's kind of pointless to say that the equilibrium is bad/unsatisfactory because we're not there yet. However that's a mathematician's approach and doesn't really help people that are trying to figure out the game right now; but idra's "game is broken" approach does not help either.
What's the point of your post ? You're just like Day9, I'm talking about the current zerg, the number of units, their potential, and you give me a useless comment about how Day9's argument is an universel unconditionnal truth always valid, which is wrong.
SC2 is not a science.
What? Science is marked specifically by not being tautologous.
You are arguing out of ignorance. The point of the post was that the attitude that the game is broken does not help a player trying to be the best. Additionally, the proposition that the game is broken is false because the state of the game (woah) is not currently such that we have obtained the necessary statistical information coupled with game equilibrium where race statistical discrepancies become apparent and important.
In other words, there is logic behind what Day9 says about players that complain about balance actually 'venting' unknowingly. People can talk about the current trends of the game, but since any strategical equilibrium is yet to be reached that discussion does not touch upon the balance of the actual game beyond shifting trends.
Damn you are so boring, you just can't read shit. I made one useless comment saying it was not a science, I was meaning that you should just go back to earth and talk about the units, their caracteristic and such, I was not referring to tautology at all. You are arguing out of nothing, trying to crush argument I did not made. I will just quote myself again :
You're just like Day9, I'm talking about the current zerg, the number of units, their potential, and you give me a useless comment about how Day9's argument is an universel unconditionnal truth
Overall your arguments are poor for two reason: Day is basically saying you cannot know if the game is trully imbalanced or not, he is right, but it does not mean the game is not imbalanced, it mean you can have faith and BELIEVE that one day the game will fix itself thanks to some lone zerg tayloring different build. So you can be a believer, I don't care. Second reason: you have no explanation on why the attitude that the game is broken does not help a player trying to be the best. It's wrong, whining about something does not prevent you from trying. Actually it can help you in many ways: for exemple, whining about the strengh of protoss force you to build arguments, and to do so you have to consider the strenght of the protoss. In the end, whining helped you understanding protoss better.
In regards to the argument between Incontrol and Tyler, I need to agree with Tyler. The that the EG rep posted was not "basic" or "simple". It was uninformative. Not telling the whole truth is the equivalent of lying. Especially if the message is misleading.
Im not saying Tyler reacted correctly, but the blame should be on the EG rep.
On May 04 2011 23:01 WhiteDog wrote: The problem is, Day9 would be 100% right on balance if we were on a different game, a finished and polished game like SC1 for exemple.
Day9 IS right because what he said is a tautology. There's no denying that we are far from a game-theory equilibrium so it's kind of pointless to say that the equilibrium is bad/unsatisfactory because we're not there yet. However that's a mathematician's approach and doesn't really help people that are trying to figure out the game right now; but idra's "game is broken" approach does not help either.
What's the point of your post ? You're just like Day9, I'm talking about the current zerg, the number of units, their potential, and you give me a useless comment about how Day9's argument is an universel unconditionnal truth always valid, which is wrong.
SC2 is not a science.
What? Science is marked specifically by not being tautologous.
You are arguing out of ignorance. The point of the post was that the attitude that the game is broken does not help a player trying to be the best. Additionally, the proposition that the game is broken is false because the state of the game (woah) is not currently such that we have obtained the necessary statistical information coupled with game equilibrium where race statistical discrepancies become apparent and important.
In other words, there is logic behind what Day9 says about players that complain about balance actually 'venting' unknowingly. People can talk about the current trends of the game, but since any strategical equilibrium is yet to be reached that discussion does not touch upon the balance of the actual game beyond shifting trends.
Actually I extremely disagree on this point. Idra has been winning more than ever, however his attitude has not changed.
In fact, from his imbalance complaints he deduced that it's not worth trying to win straight up against a protoss anymore, and so he's been doing a lot more coinflips and cheesy all-in stuff and has been winning more.
So the idea that idra's attitude does not help him be the best just seems false all around. That's a statement that just seems true.
On May 04 2011 23:33 Yaotzin wrote: Tyler/Inc say the same stuff as Day and they're also pros. They said the same stuff back when Protoss sucked hard too.
Actually Tyler back up Idra and so did Tastosis.
Personally I think Day9 has too many fanboys that take him too seriously. He is a great caster and a good entertainer but as far as being a player and understanding the game he is not as good as his fanboys think.
On May 04 2011 23:40 DukeCanada wrote: In regards to the argument between Incontrol and Tyler, I need to agree with Tyler. The that the EG rep posted was not "basic" or "simple". It was uninformative. Not telling the whole truth is the equivalent of lying. Especially if the message is misleading.
Im not saying Tyler reacted correctly, but the blame should be on the EG rep.
I think the important point to note regarding that whole thing was that like it or not, when Tyler posts he represents Liquid' to a large section of the community.
On May 04 2011 23:33 Yaotzin wrote: Tyler/Inc say the same stuff as Day and they're also pros. They said the same stuff back when Protoss sucked hard too.
hate to break it to you but protoss never "sucked". Almost every pro toss back then said in interviews its a good race despite of not winning many tournaments, because everytime they lost they could points mistake which could be fixed and made them lose the game
On May 04 2011 23:33 Yaotzin wrote: Tyler/Inc say the same stuff as Day and they're also pros. They said the same stuff back when Protoss sucked hard too.
Actually Tyler back up Idra and so did Tastosis.
Personally I think Day9 has too many fanboys that take him too seriously. He is a great caster and a good entertainer but as far as being a player and understanding the game he is not as good as his fanboys think.
He has a very Deep understanding , However like Incontrol said , He isn"t in touch with the Pro scene right now as much as he was in broodwar.
Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, but this is what I think Day9 was getting at:
Idra's sample of "imbalance" was that you can't get an overlord into a terran base to scout if/what sort of cheesy build is going on and react to it. Therefore, idra concludes, ZvT is imbalanced. Granted he has other reasons for thinking this too, but this is one of the reasons.
Now, by Day9's standards, this is venting, not showing imbalance. To show imbalance, you have to establish that all of the following are true:
-Getting that Overlord in provides scouting information the Zerg player absolutely needs -Without that scouting information, Zerg has a coinflip or worse chance of reacting properly. -Zerg can not react properly after the tech choice is otherwise revealed. -Zerg can not do any sort of build that would come out favorably in a majority of possible outcomes based off of other scouting information.
By Day9's standards, idra was just saying that all of these points are true, not proving it. It's almost impossible to prove it in a setting like SOTG because it requires serious analysis of a lot of games to establish that any of these points are true. I don't really know who I agree with, but I'd agree that the very academic standards that Day9 set on the definition of imbalanced haven't been publicly and irrefutably established. Like in science, however, this doesn't mean imbalances don't exist - simply that we have failed to reject the null hypothesis that imbalance *doesn't* exist.
That's all that Colbi said at first regarding the issue with Liquid. I don't understand what Tyler wants. Colbi isn't a speaker for liquid, and he probably didn't feel comfortable giving that information if TL didn't want it given out.
On May 04 2011 23:46 SpartanERK wrote: Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, but this is what I think Day9 was getting at:
Idra's sample of "imbalance" was that you can't get an overlord into a terran base to scout if/what sort of cheesy build is going on and react to it. Therefore, idra concludes, ZvT is imbalanced. Granted he has other reasons for thinking this too, but this is one of the reasons.
Now, by Day9's standards, this is venting, not showing imbalance. To show imbalance, you have to establish that all of the following are true:
-Getting that Overlord in provides scouting information the Zerg player absolutely needs -Without that scouting information, Zerg has a coinflip or worse chance of reacting properly. -Zerg can not react properly after the tech choice is otherwise revealed. -Zerg can not do any sort of build that would come out favorably in a majority of possible outcomes based off of other scouting information.
By Day9's standards, idra was just saying that all of these points are true, not proving it. It's almost impossible to prove it in a setting like SOTG because it requires serious analysis of a lot of games to establish that any of these points are true. I don't really know who I agree with, but I'd agree that the very academic standards that Day9 set on the definition of imbalanced haven't been publicly and irrefutably established. Like in science, however, this doesn't mean imbalances don't exist - simply that we have failed to reject the null hypothesis that imbalance *doesn't* exist.
Except Day9 actually agreed with IdrA on all the points mentioned above, even more confusingly. At least he agreed that Zerg cannot defend against everything and Zerg cannot properly scout. Day9 just disagreed with very little explanation.
On May 04 2011 23:46 SpartanERK wrote: Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth, but this is what I think Day9 was getting at:
Idra's sample of "imbalance" was that you can't get an overlord into a terran base to scout if/what sort of cheesy build is going on and react to it. Therefore, idra concludes, ZvT is imbalanced. Granted he has other reasons for thinking this too, but this is one of the reasons.
Now, by Day9's standards, this is venting, not showing imbalance. To show imbalance, you have to establish that all of the following are true:
-Getting that Overlord in provides scouting information the Zerg player absolutely needs -Without that scouting information, Zerg has a coinflip or worse chance of reacting properly. -Zerg can not react properly after the tech choice is otherwise revealed. -Zerg can not do any sort of build that would come out favorably in a majority of possible outcomes based off of other scouting information.
By Day9's standards, idra was just saying that all of these points are true, not proving it. It's almost impossible to prove it in a setting like SOTG because it requires serious analysis of a lot of games to establish that any of these points are true. I don't really know who I agree with, but I'd agree that the very academic standards that Day9 set on the definition of imbalanced haven't been publicly and irrefutably established. Like in science, however, this doesn't mean imbalances don't exist - simply that we have failed to reject the null hypothesis that imbalance *doesn't* exist.
It also doesn't seem like Day[9] is putting much effort into publicly and irrefutably establishing data for the academic standards set on his definition of an imbalanced environment. He simply seems to say, "Give it time, others will try creative builds and it will potentially solve these issues."
The thing is, the argument boils down to this idea of Zerg players who are so much better than players who play other races are losing games, but what do we have to go on that they're losing despite being better players? Or losing because they're having a bad day?
IdrA was making the argument that you have to be a shit ton better than your opponent to beat them with Zerg but that just goes back to IdrA being fucking IdrA, which is why Geoff brought up his thoughts on SC1 balance. If he wins, he becomes the king of the world with this view and if he loses it's because the game is broken. That's all this serves.
These approaches to the game and how people are discussing balance right now is fucking annoying because all it does is take away from the players involved, "He's so much better he just lost because of -insert imba imba imba-". All we can and should really be focussing on right now is player skill. All we have to go in is win rates more or less and even then without a massive sample size, it can't be fair.
I remember a compilation of non-korean tournament results detailing the win rates of each race and they were all within 1-2% of each other with a sample size of roughly 8000 games. What more can you have to go off at this time? Well in the case of the Zergs obviously it's because Zerg players are 10 times better than the other players... Right? Then when you "balance" the game, wouldn't Zerg just shit on everything? But then, it'd be fine because they are the better players anyways...
Can we not see a fucking problem here?
You can argue individual things such as, it's hard to scout and you have no quick defense options, but when Geoff said, "So if Spinecrawlers were faster-" and IdrA immediately brought up Banshees or something else. Yeah, you can make the arguments that Zergs immediate tech switching late game is fundamentally broken, producing units on one tech structure is fucking ridiculous if you think about it, it's all balanced out based on give and take, that may be bad design but it is what it is.
All we really have to go on is the success of players after long periods of play with a large sample size. Currently, it looks okay, but if you listen to IdrA, it sounds like a Zerg should pretty much never win anything ever... So have Zergs just been getting super fucking lucky in the foreign scene to maintain near the same win percentage as other races? I'm lost here.
On May 04 2011 23:40 DukeCanada wrote: In regards to the argument between Incontrol and Tyler, I need to agree with Tyler. The that the EG rep posted was not "basic" or "simple". It was uninformative. Not telling the whole truth is the equivalent of lying. Especially if the message is misleading.
Im not saying Tyler reacted correctly, but the blame should be on the EG rep.
How does that make any sense? Some asked where TeamLiquid was and he said they were invited but chose not to play. That's all Colbi needed to say there, there's absolutely no reason to start up some big discussion especially since his only 2 other options were to either just explain EG's side and not mention TL's side which would be a completely dick move or to explain EG's side and then also speak for TL which I don't think is the right thing to do. Colbi said what he should say there and had TL responded after Colbi's comment with something along the lines of "We were invited but due to the logistical problem's involved with us having half of our team in Korea and us not being able to come to a compromise to fix some of those issues we chose not to participate" everything would have been fine. Instead Tyler posts his aggressive statements and starts a giant flame war.
Make the Changeling an Overlord ability and let it crawl up/down cliffs. Internal 45sec-1min cooldown. Researchable in a hatchery for 50/50 after spawning pool finishes, takes as long as concussive shells. And needs some more HP.
Then I don't have to listen to a 25 minute debate on zerg-scouting again, where one guy is just venting his frustration and the other guy tells him that this is useless.
EPT
