|
On May 05 2011 02:33 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 02:26 Kisra wrote:
A lot of people misunderstand Day9's points. Also, the key thing that Day9 repeated was: To get to the nitty-gritty of a balance discussion, you'd need a lot of numbers, and a lot of replays. For Day9 to commit to saying "Yes, this is imbalanced", he would need facts. He's a math guy, its how he processes things. Day9 didn't give counter-arguements to IdrA's arguements because, as he said, it would take a long time - and that wasn't the apropriate theater to do it. They couldn't exactly say "Okay JP, hold on a minute while we download a ton of ZvX replays and look for trends and patterns."
The feeling I got from the entire discussion was that Day9 would actually enjoy sitting down with IdrA with a pile of replays, a notebook, and figuring things out.
So sure, IdrA presented his broad-strokes concerns with the game and Day9's reply was basically "Show me". Because they couldn't do that on State of the Game, the entire discussion wouldn't be able to go anywhere, which boils down to IdrA venting.
Also, his meta-game comments are widely misunderstood. If you think Day9 wants a situation where, lets say, 4-gate is the optimal strat to play and the game turns into nothing but 4-gates, then I think you need to go watch Day9 Daily 100 again.
As for Tyler and iNcontroL...
... The discussion got off track, really, which is where JP should've maybe stepped in. Looking at what occurred in the EG Masters thread - Colbi posted, speculation ran rife, Tyler posted and things suddenly felt a bit tense, we can learn a few things.
First: Asynchronus releases of information will lead to rampant speculation and people hunting drama. Its the internet, it happens.
Second: Incomplete information will also lead to rampant speculation.
So, how could any drama have been avoided? The most straightforward solution to me is if Colbi and Nazgul had a brief talk and said "We'll both say our sides of the story and release it once the thread is up." I don't think anyone was surprised when one of the first questions asked was "Where's Liquid?" - so a good answer to that question should be prepared.
Sure, Colbi did his job (and did it fine), but the fact is the thread's first bunch of pages are a shitstorm of people asking all sorts, and it was only when Nazgul posted was there any clarity. Just a few more steps towards better communication and it could be avoided.
I'm also painfully aware that posting in this thread is like trying to shout in a crowded room. There's so many posts that nobody will really read or understand anything, and some people just want to yell "lol inc and tyler r fighting!" or "yeah idra u tell it to day9!" I hope I've at least added something constructive to the thread. Very good post. Thanks for taking your time to explain things to people. Rarely happens in this thread... might be ignored anyway though, hopefully not.
Ditto on the shouting-in-a-crowded room metaphor ... 
|
Both Tyler and Day9 had some weak moments last night, which is unfortunate seeing as they had 20000 people watching them. Day9 basically refused to have a debate and just put on a smile and avoided the topic, which was fairly embarrassing. But then again, he doesn't really play SC2 anyways.
Tyler on the other hand didn't just look silly, he looked completely idiotic. It's one thing to have a sense of entitlement and elitism and another entirely to just be an illogical prick in your actions/statements towards others. Incontrol and Idra were absolutely correct -- Colbi stated a fact. Tyler for some reason decided to turn it into a fight, and on top of that a horribly ill-thought out one.
|
On May 05 2011 02:33 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 02:09 INFDexter wrote:
Okay, obviously Idra is biased, and a lot of his remarks are inflammatory. However, Day9 did not really add anything to the conversation, and seems completely unwilling to make any sort of comment on Idra's points. I have to say, from a listener perspective, this is slightly frustrating.
Day9 obviously knows a lot about the game and does really great analysis, but he is not a competitive player and doesn't actively contribute to the meta game, other than from a strictly bystander perspective.
That being said, it could also be argued that Idra doesn't contribute anything either by making statements like "My race is broken." Statements like that seem to come from frustration, and frustration is not a good element to add into a balance discussion. But, statements like "No amount of creativity will get an Overlord past a marine" point out something specific that shows a serious weakness in Zerg. I would love to hear Day9 say something about this point other than "I don't agree with you" or continue to argue that some magic solution is out there, which might be true, but doesn't really add anything to the discussion of Zerg's scouting problems. Furthermore, Day9 admitted that the game might evolve to the point where one race isn't played anymore because of how the metagame has evolved. In my opinion, this would be terrible for esports and sc2, and if such a thing were to happen, serious changes in the game would have to be made. Idra's point: "Either I need to be able to overlord scout or i need to be able to defend everything or the game is broken. I curently can't do either of those things. Therefore the game is broken." There are 3 logical places to attack this: his assumptions (the first sentence), his statement (the second sentence or his conclusion. Obviously his conclusion follows from his assumption and his statement, so lets rule that one out. The assumption and the statement are both clearly stated as if they were fact, without any detail. Therefore all Day can say is "I think you're wrong". If Greg opens a replay and says "look here I couldn't scout", then lots of people will have feedback. When someone says say "I think math is based on flawed assumptions", and doesn't go into more detail than that, then your only rebuttal can be one that doesn't contribute much: "I think you're wrong". Now, if Idra picked some game and said "this game is evidence of imbalance because _______", people will have stuff to talk about. He won't do this, so all the conversation can ever be is Idra talking about his feelings as though they were indisputable fact and other people saying "I think you're wrong".
Agreed. The IRC chat was pretty toxic with Idra fanboys bagging on Day9. I mean I guess that's not unexpected with big webcasts of this size, 20K (you'll get bad apples)...but it was REALLY disappointing to see that behavior.
It seems none of those detractors understand the need for statistically significant data supporting Idra's allegations. Idra spouted some general lines and then expected everyone to believe they are not colored with his bias for Zerg. Sean kept asking for data and Idra was not willing to give it. It's like having a political debate without facts - how productive is it going to be?
Also as a general statement, I am still curious on when a pillar for Terran will be brought on board. E.g. The Thor discussion, coming from a Toss and Zerg perspective is nice... but it's not enough.
|
People seem to be so close minded these days.
Day[9] is demanding serious data. Replay analysis, stats, build variations, etc. He is not crying imba, and for good reason. The simple fact that Idra is an amazing zerg player attests to the fact that Zerg is not cripplingly under powered.
A week ago if you looked at the European top 10, there was like one Protoss.
I also whole heartily agree with Tyler in the Protoss coin flip vs the Zerg desire for stable play. Its not fair if Z can defend everything without taking a risk. T and P take a risk, why cant Z? Is it because some pro tells you that you shouldnt have to?
|
On May 05 2011 01:06 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 22:20 MrCon wrote:
Wow, that discussion between Tyler and Geof/Idra about the EGMasterCup was quite shocking. I'm not sure if Geof was missing the point voluntarily or not. The point is Liquid has a high ethic standard. When other teams comes to promote their product on Liquid, either they adopt themselves that high ethic standard or they just don't come to Liquid.
In the current situation, I'm not far to think that if EG was in liquid situation of having a site in quasi monopoly on starcraft market, the "growth of esport" argument that Geof loved using during their debate would be much, much worse. Because they would try to benefit a lot, lot more financially and would just let sponsors or anyone with a big enough check say whatever bullshit they want on their site. And most likely would prevent competition of existing on their site.
Tyler wasn't saying "You come on liquid so don't say anything bad about liquid", he was saying you come on liquid so don't spew PR bullshit because our forum tries to stay protected of that. And Liquid is what it is because of this. I'm sad Tyler didn't find the words to express how that speech from Geof was just off topic. If Tyler and Liquid were like Geof described with his "dangerous way of thinking", they would just remove the EG thread and not put the tourney on the calendar. It would have 500 viewers, and then Geof could talk about "dangerous way of thinking".
I think you missed the point, MrCon. You need to read the actual EG Master's Cup thread. EG and Colbi DID hold themselves to a high ethical standard, and responded with a neutral, diplomatic and non-partisan response. It was the Team Liquid players that escalated the matter and made it combative, to the point that the admins had to simmer it down. I think everyone on the show would agree that there shouldn't be any 'PR bullshit' on the site and as much transparency as possible. But if your going to demonize every person that sells them self, or withholds information to protect their image as well as the image of others, well, you're going to have a problem with 99% of society. Geoff is exactly right, it is a "dangerous way of thinking", and a slippery slope.
The problem was that Colbi didn't actually answer the question forum users were asking: "why isn't team liquid in your league?" Saying that "they rejected the invite" is not the same as saying "they rejected the invite because they weren't satisfied with the playing conditions for their players in korea". The latter is as professional as the former, but satisfies the question made by the forum users.
|
On May 05 2011 02:39 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 02:33 Treehead wrote:
"Either I need to be able to overlord scout or i need to be able to defend everything or the game is broken. I curently can't do either of those things. Therefore the game is broken."
Just for the record, the assumptions in this are daft. Zerg can easily defend whatever allin they want. They'll just be stuck on one base and die an economic death. IdrA wants to know how to get away with an economically strong build that doesn't die to any allins. Which is something that takes a shitload of time to figure out. It takes an especially long time for Zerg because they tread such a fine line with overdroning or not.
And who's to say, using Idra's mindset, that if that's possible, Zerg won't turn out to be OP? I'm hopeful that the same players on SotG that don't cry imba now won't cry it then, while Idra will just say "I'm better than you."
|
4 years from now Day9 will still be saying that the game needs to evolve, so I don't really think he is a credible source on SC2 information compared to IdrA considering IdrA actually is a progamer and Day9 is a celebrity caster
SC1 != SC2. The metagame of SC1 was controlled by how hard it was to macro up towards the units that did massive damage through intensive micro use. SC2 everything is 100% easier to do and AOE does so much more damage because of clumping so the game is fkin easy and anyone can play it (including myself). The Metagame of this game has to be controlled by blizzard through patches and balance tweaks, not by the evolution of the game itself
On May 05 2011 02:45 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 02:39 Yaotzin wrote:On May 05 2011 02:33 Treehead wrote:
"Either I need to be able to overlord scout or i need to be able to defend everything or the game is broken. I curently can't do either of those things. Therefore the game is broken."
Just for the record, the assumptions in this are daft. Zerg can easily defend whatever allin they want. They'll just be stuck on one base and die an economic death. IdrA wants to know how to get away with an economically strong build that doesn't die to any allins. Which is something that takes a shitload of time to figure out. It takes an especially long time for Zerg because they tread such a fine line with overdroning or not. And who's to say, using Idra's mindset, that if that's possible, Zerg won't turn out to be OP? I'm hopeful that the same players on SotG that don't cry imba now won't cry it then, while Idra will just say "I'm better than you."
have you watched IdrA's stream? its not that he's better than you he's better than you because he understands the game so much more than you and its apparent in his playstyle.
|
Also, his meta-game comments are widely misunderstood. If you think Day9 wants a situation where, lets say, 4-gate is the optimal strat to play and the game turns into nothing but 4-gates, then I think you need to go watch Day9 Daily 100 again.
What he wants had no part in the discussion, he argued that even games where one strategy is clearly the best and everyone should do it are "balanced" (he gave tic-tac-toe as an example). When we in the SC community talk about balance we are talking about the fact that optimally race should not affect which player wins the game, not in the abstract way he was. The way he was talking about "balance" is clearly not useful to us, nobody would want to watch or play a game that devolved into that even if it did fit how he defined "balance".
|
|
|
Good show last night! It was awesome to see Tasteless and Machine in the mix. Also congrats on the 20K viewers.
On the topic of the Day9/Idra and Tyler/iNcontroL debates, I thought there was some interesting discussion generated by both sides, but they went way too long and I think that hurt the show. ItmeJP could have stepped in a bit sooner and been a more active referee. At a certain point those conversations were neither productive nor entertaining and it's the host's job to keep things from completely degenerating.
|
On May 05 2011 01:48 Medrea wrote:
Geoff: Ask Greg what race he thought was weak in BW
Greg: ... Terran
Geoff: and what race did you play
Greg: ....Terran
haha, you could literally hear Greg squirming as he realised what his answer was going to look like. That was well played from Geoff.
|
On May 05 2011 02:11 Ceari wrote:
Can JP please in the future prevent the co-casters of the show from drinking strong alcoholic beverages? I felt as the show progressed the discussions became severly impaired due to that factor.
I happen to disagree. Alcohol = less of a filter. Plus the show is very casual as it's meant to be. I like to see these players/casters relax and voice their open opinion on matters where anywhere else they need to keep reserved.
In fact, drink more.
|
On May 05 2011 02:50 Teivospy wrote:
4 years from now Day9 will still be saying that the game needs to evolve, so I don't really think he is a credible source on SC2 information compared to IdrA considering IdrA actually is a progamer and Day9 is a celebrity caster
SC1 != SC2. The metagame of SC1 was controlled by how hard it was to macro up towards the units that did massive damage through intensive micro use. SC2 everything is 100% easier to do and AOE does so much more damage because of clumping so the game is fkin easy and anyone can play it (including myself). The Metagame of this game has to be controlled by blizzard through patches and balance tweaks, not by the evolution of the game itself
As many people have already said though, IdrA is also obviously biased, while Day9 isn't and has no reason to be.
So I don't think he's really a much more credible source because of that bias.
|
On May 05 2011 02:50 Teivospy wrote:
4 years from now Day9 will still be saying that the game needs to evolve, so I don't really think he is a credible source on SC2 information compared to IdrA considering IdrA actually is a progamer and Day9 is a celebrity caster
SC1 != SC2. The metagame of SC1 was controlled by how hard it was to macro up towards the units that did massive damage through intensive micro use. SC2 everything is 100% easier to do and AOE does so much more damage because of clumping so the game is fkin easy and anyone can play it (including myself). The Metagame of this game has to be controlled by blizzard through patches and balance tweaks, not by the evolution of the game itself
No the metagame also has to evolve based on new findings and refinements from the players.
But Idra's point was that scouting early game will never change due to some metagame changes, because it is just impossible to change and because of that zergs have to do a guessing game or take risks.
|
On May 05 2011 02:50 Teivospy wrote:
4 years from now Day9 will still be saying that the game needs to evolve, so I don't really think he is a credible source on SC2 information compared to IdrA considering IdrA actually is a progamer and Day9 is a celebrity caster.
I am supremely impressed with your knowledge of future events. Are you selling your Delorean, since I really want to see what else Day9 will say in 4 years.
|
As many people have already said though, IdrA is also obviously biased, while Day9 isn't and has no reason to be.
Just because Day9's opinion is not biased towards a particular race does not mean his opinion has no bias.
|
On May 05 2011 02:26 Kisra wrote:
A lot of people misunderstand Day9's points. Also, the key thing that Day9 repeated was: To get to the nitty-gritty of a balance discussion, you'd need a lot of numbers, and a lot of replays. For Day9 to commit to saying "Yes, this is imbalanced", he would need facts. He's a math guy, its how he processes things. Day9 didn't give counter-arguements to IdrA's arguements because, as he said, it would take a long time - and that wasn't the apropriate theater to do it. They couldn't exactly say "Okay JP, hold on a minute while we download a ton of ZvX replays and look for trends and patterns."
The feeling I got from the entire discussion was that Day9 would actually enjoy sitting down with IdrA with a pile of replays, a notebook, and figuring things out.
So sure, IdrA presented his broad-strokes concerns with the game and Day9's reply was basically "Show me". Because they couldn't do that on State of the Game, the entire discussion wouldn't be able to go anywhere, which boils down to IdrA venting.
Also, his meta-game comments are widely misunderstood. If you think Day9 wants a situation where, lets say, 4-gate is the optimal strat to play and the game turns into nothing but 4-gates, then I think you need to go watch Day9 Daily 100 again.
Here's where I have beef with this: on the VERY SAME SHOW just MINUTES before this conversation between day9 and idra, day9 and the brotosses discussed the new thor change which is a protoss buff. I don't really know the situation since im a Z but day9 concluded that it was a good change because protoss just "needed a little wiggle room." Would day9 ever say on SOTG before this change was made that thor was op vs protoss? No way, because he's opposed to calling anything op without numbers and nitty gritty bla bla bla.
He also agreed with blizzard's approach to the protoss warpgate changes etc by saying he loved how they made small changes and then adjusted to them, because they were getting into the details and seeing how they worked and fixing them accordingly.
WELL HOW THE HELL DO WE GET THAT TO HAPPEN WITH ZERG? Why is it that blizzard will go out of its way to fix the thor problem asap when its such a small problem it never even got discussed on sotg, unlike the zerg problems which have been a long term theme? How do we get it in blizzard's head to decrease spine crawler build time and make overlord speed hatch tech? It's not gonna break the game, and maybe other nerfs will have to be made to compensate. If it happens, though, maybe it'll just give zergs a "little wiggle room" and day9 will get all giddy about how great it is. WE'LL NEVER KNOW IF WE NEVER SEE IT HAPPEN.
So if we're not going to call anything op, but we are going to agree with any buffs/nerfs after they are made, how is it ever decided where the changes need to be made? day9 has simply decided to keep himself absent from that conversation, and I think that's fine, but the attitude he displayed in the sotg was highly obnoxious. Sure, idra could use a little composure and could structure his points more eloquently, but day9's fake oblivious bullshit is not good for constructive discussions.
|
Idra made a lot of good points on the zerg weaknesses early game even if he was venting a bit, it doesn't disprove his valid points of scouting inefficiency.
Day9 responded by saying "like" a thousand times and making absolutely no statement about anything in particular.
Fairly obvious to everyone who's got the stronger position in that argument.
BTW Idra's point wasn't that he should be able to just always scout everything and be able to react perfectly, its that the game is CURRENTLY in such a volatile state for zerg that there is a point in the beginning where the zerg can AT BEST just make a guess.
Well, i'll make some drones here and hope he doesnt attack so that my economy isnt complete shit.....or...
Well i'll make some units since i THINK he's about to attack, boy i really hope he doesnt expand because if he DOES, then ALL THESE UNITS I MADE ARE USELESS OFFENSIVELY and now im that much farther behind in the economy.
His point is , with zerg, you HAVE to just fucking guess and hope you guess right. Which as he said, is a horrible way to have things working.
|
On May 05 2011 02:39 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 02:33 Treehead wrote:
"Either I need to be able to overlord scout or i need to be able to defend everything or the game is broken. I curently can't do either of those things. Therefore the game is broken."
Just for the record, the assumptions in this are daft. Zerg can easily defend whatever allin they want. They'll just be stuck on one base and die an economic death. IdrA wants to know how to get away with an economically strong build that doesn't die to any allins. Which is something that takes a shitload of time to figure out. It takes an especially long time for Zerg because they tread such a fine line with overdroning or not.
I didnt specifically call out the distinction between defending all-ins and defending late game pushes. Should I have? I assume that zerg needs an early expo to keep up economically now, so that they aren't helpless if a big push comes later. I assume that they expand because they need the money. Am I wrong? And if so, why not just stick to 1 base longer - or get a more defendable in base hatch?
I thought I cast a wide enough net with the word "everything". I guess I need to be more explicit.
|
On May 05 2011 02:50 Teivospy wrote:
4 years from now Day9 will still be saying that the game needs to evolve, so I don't really think he is a credible source on SC2 information compared to IdrA considering IdrA actually is a progamer and Day9 is a celebrity caster
SC1 != SC2. The metagame of SC1 was controlled by how hard it was to macro up towards the units that did massive damage through intensive micro use. SC2 everything is 100% easier to do and AOE does so much more damage because of clumping so the game is fkin easy and anyone can play it (including myself). The Metagame of this game has to be controlled by blizzard through patches and balance tweaks, not by the evolution of the game itself
I'm sorry, your data to back this up is where?
People bashing on day9 is fucking rediculous, really. By what grounds can you say Idra is better at analyzing the game than day9? That's right, you can't. Being a respected progamer does not make your opinion above everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
