EPTOfficial State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 988
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
| ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
On May 05 2011 14:59 zaku2woody wrote: That lst show was great! Even Tasteless was there!! I love how much he swears for no apparent reason ^^ | ||
|
Kazang
578 Posts
On May 05 2011 15:04 Azarkon wrote: From the games Vibe played against Grubby today, 3 gate expand does need cannons. Zerg two base all-ins will almost certainly kill the nexus otherwise. Not a good example. + Show Spoiler + On Xel'naga you could maybe say that since it's so open you need cannons or more units but Grubby misplaced and wasted every single forcefield which was what lost him the Xel'naga game so you can't really draw anything from that specifically. As Vibe mentioned afterwards that kind of attack is very effective on that map due to the open natural. On others, such as shakuras for example that kind of thing wouldn't be a good strategy. | ||
|
jpditri
United States86 Posts
On May 05 2011 13:14 rO_Or wrote: Regardless of who is right or wrong, last night's SOTG was actually interesting This is where my only complaint for the last SOTG comes from-- the disagreement between Tyler and Geoff was interesting, but JP should have stepped in a lot sooner. The argument boiled down to whether or not the EG representative should have completely explained Liquid's absence in their most recent tournament. Obviously, Tyler felt that the EG rep should have acted more as a Forum Poster with Information, where Geoff felt that the appropriate response was to explain only the most brief overview, and not discuss the specifics of the disagreement. Once it became clear that the argument wasn't one that was going to be resolved through further discussion, JP should have stepped in, summarized, and moved on. After the first 10 minutes of the argument (especially after Tyler superfluously brought up post count and then Geoff occasionally picked that point to argue-- both even said on-air that the post count of a user shouldn't be a metric when evaluating the quality of a contribution) JP should have recognized that the argument had reached a point where the catalyst of the argument was no longer relevant and acted as the mediator and the host. The discussion got caught up in the drama of the original thread, and didn't end up discussing the philosophical differences between two disagreeing hosts. The real problem wasn't about the veracity of posters, or their motives. or their contributions to the site, or any of the other bullshit-- the question was whether or not a tournament should explain why Expected Team X isn't included on the roster. Tyler was upset because it looks bad when a world-class SC2 team isn't part of a tournament, and the only explanation available why is "we invited them, they declined." A team that declines solid tournaments for no good reason looks bad. When the EG rep didn't provide a good (any) reason, he felt it implicitly made the team look bad (and was antithetical to the information sharing nature of the forum format). Geoff felt that the responsibility of the league extended only as far as to explaining what happened and not why, because The Why is a private matter between the league and the team; he also felt that by having an EG representative explain for Liquid the reasons they declined that EG would be crossing the line and risk putting words in Liquid's collective mouth. I don't think there is a right answer in that situation; but when the show hits these points, that's when JP needs to step in. The whole Extended Series debate is another one-- there isn't winning that argument because people have different opinions on what a tournament / event should represent. Opinions (among other things) make the show great. I just hope JP will be more quick to diffuse and move on when an argument isn't going anywhere. Don't take this to mean I think he should cut all opinion/argumentation out or anything, it's just that I feel he needs to be a little quicker to decide that a discussion has moved beyond useful. Even if it is premature (I felt the Idra/Day9 discussion started going places towards the end) there's always next week to cover it when both parties have had a chance to chill and consider the other sides opinion. | ||
|
millardkillmore
United States12 Posts
On May 05 2011 14:45 MajorityofOne wrote: 1) He wasn't just talking about versus T, he was also talking about it being difficult to scout versus P 2) Scouting is not 'impossible" before lair tech. You need to infer things about your opponents build based on suboptimal information. Nobody can hide everything from an overlord sack, nor will you ever get nothing from checking the front with lings. If that isn't enough for you to narrow down what your opponent is doing, and you decide to play greedy, you deserve what you get. A protoss doesn't get free info once lings are out, and a terran needs to waste a mule, his only means of economic competition, for his free peak. 3) The reactions necessary aren't even that different, you need a few specific ways to handle "tech" based plays and a specific way to handle low-tier all-ins. Scouting out which one is coming isn't even difficult once you've seen they're staying on one base; against Terran all you need to see is whether they've taken both gasses. If they have, it's a tech, if they haven't its either units or an in-base fast CC. I don't know PvZ well enough to comment, but the very fact that stalkers as opposed to sentries are shooting down your overlord should tell you something about the build. 4) Any true one-base play is as risky for a Terran or Toss as it is for the Zerg defending it. They're guessing that you won't react correctly; as I mentioned above, a coinflip build goes both ways. There's a reason high-level Terrans are massively favoring the reasonably fast expo against Zerg, whether from a 2rax, a fast hellion, or straight up. It's because one-base plays simply don't work reliably, and are reliant on Zerg playing poorly. The most viable is the banshee opening, and even that leaves you miles behind unless you correctly "guess" that they arent going to grab a fast evo or lair. 5) Some Zerg builds do require blind spine crawlers. They're not particularly rare even at the highest levels of play. PvZ often incorporates blind cannons and TvZ basically always involves blind turrets. 6) If Idra thinks he can compensate for imbalance with skill, he should also logically infer that he could dominate if he didn't play a weak race. So it's a foolish choice to stick with Zerg, when if his own opinion of his skill is correct he could be in the elite tier with Terran or Protoss. 2) the amount of info you can get from lings at the front (just talking about 1 basing here) is almost nothing if the other player is good. a toss/terran doesn't have to leave their army at the ramp, and only should in teh case of a threatened all in by the zerg. the sac overlord will see something, yes, but unless you get lucky and miss the ranged units forming a perimitter around their base then also luck out and see a building, seeing for instance a factory doesn't tell you if there's also a starport for instance. the success of an ovvie scout is reliant entirely on the opponent being bad (not having a ring of marines/stalkers to ward it off/kill it) and luck (stumbling upon the key building because you will NOT see the whole base). 3)if it's tech you need to know what kind. 2 gas could be banshee, thor, blue flame, quick tank into expo (bad, but possible). in base CC or units require HUGLEY different responses, so not seeing 2 gas has told me nothing. any build in ZvP can have 1-2 stalkers or sentries, so just seeing that unit isn't enough. in fact, even seeing 8 sentries doesn't tell you if that's to defend an expo or create early pressure. 4) if that 1 base works for terran/toss you win the game/get a huge advantage. if it doesn't work the zerg had to cut econ to make units and the toss/terran is a bit behind. the risk is a slight disatvantage for the possibility of winning the game. 5)blind cannons are only necessary in the case of an early expo (which doesn't cost the same as spine crawlers and are also better) and blind turrets are not 100% necessary since marines can hold early mutas long enough for turrets to construct. if you miss the mutas and are unprepared, you will take damage, but not to the same extent that a zerg will if they miss the cloked banshee/blue flame/marine drop 6) i can't comment on idra's motivation besides describing what he's mentioned in the past about the amount of work he's put into zerg. personally i don't like the notion that i should be penalized because i thought hydralisks were really cool instead of high templars, so i deserve to have a harder time/weaker race due to my personal preference. i play for fun (mostly, still enjoy flexing the ol' epeen from time to time) and would apreciate it if i didn't have to switch races to stand an equal chance as everyone else. | ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
On May 05 2011 14:41 Kich wrote: This thinking is a little naive at this point in time. Personally I'm unopposed to the semi-frequent changes. This is mostly a result of a newer age of technology and learning--I come from a fighting game background and it's largely the same situation (and by this I mean, you played with what you were given and dealt with it, imbalances or not). Changes can occur more frequently because of several things: 1) There are way more people playing now than there ever have been, resulting in feedback en masse about certain topics. 2) The average player level rises dramatically in an environment where information is almost free-flowing, never has there been so much content so readily available. There weren't the kind of streams that there are now, to put it in fighting game terms: people would save some special trick or tactic for the largest tournaments of the year--these tricks were often things that would now be considered rudimentary and basic but at the time with the lack of free flowing knowledge if you were to figure it out before the rest of the crowd you were in a power position. In this environment, changes occur more rapidly because there are so many people trying to flesh out the changes together and sharing this knowledge literally all day every day on sites just like this one. It's easier to get relevant information about changes this way. 3) The paradigm of Blizzard design is now to fix immediate issues through patches (the dominance of 4gate for instance) and save broader issues for expansions (the supposed weakness of zerg for instance). This can be frustrating for veterans who essentially got to play a game that almost never changed numerically throughout the course of it's existence. So while there are a lot of people who will be frustrated about things changing, try and have some fun with it. It's just how it's going to be, they work through balance changes a lot faster than they used to, though I agree some more time should be given for certain things, particularly the idea that zerg is underpowered. I feel like zerg's are still horrendously underusing the Nydus Network, Hydra drops, infestors, burrowed roaches, and earlier gas builds. I feel like they try to win battles with their mid-tier units against armies with mid tier units / top tier units and then are surprised when they lose.. I think a lot of work needs to be done on the zerg end, a lot of work needs to be done on all races really. I have no doubts that eventually the Protoss Death-Ball style of play will become archaic and childish in the face of more mobile armies etc.. it'll just take time. You must have misunderstood me. I think it's bad for e-sports because consistency is so key to longevity. E-sports exist because of the fans.... Fans don't have time to keep up with frequent patch changes and the new strategies that evolve with them. If frequent patch changes occur I can see this popularity of this game fading long before it should. I think using BW as an example is once again a strong argument to support this. The games has gone unpatched for so long and players are still finding ways to keep the game competitive and entertaining. It scares me that so many people are banking on SC2 being the flagship game for e-sports to go mainstream when there's so much uncertainty surrounding the metagame. IN MY HONEST OPINION (being subjective here) frequent patch changes make the game less interesting and less enjoyable. | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:42 IdrA wrote: dimaga was one of the best sc1 foreigners as well nony would be at least one of the best if he practiced more sangho should be competitive for a gsl... and hes now in the top 8. you cant say anyone *should* win a tournament of that caliber and mc was equivalent if not better than him towards the end of sc1. So is this where all the bitterness comes from? When people like you and Ret who went to Korea to train for a different game are not automatically kings? That you are losing to people that you feel are inferior because they weren't great or didn't even play SC1? Why though? Does the thought of SC1 not mattering feel like you wasted years of your life? Does it pain you to hear people like MC, MVP and IntotheRainbow say that whether you did or did not play SC1 matter? This game, although as much as you would like to admit doesn't, is still different to Starcraft 1. Whether or not you played then gives you no advantage in the end. -Players who were considered awful back then, like NesTea, who are considered the best of their race now. -Players who were great back then, barely play this game but perform AMAZINGLY, like Mondragon and TheStC (and Nada etc). -People who have never played SC1 but have risen to the top and displayed more skill than the vast majority, people like Naniwa. This isn't SC1 anymore. Stop talking about it as if it matters. EDIT: Rest of my post is pretty rubbish, read it in the spoiler if you want + Show Spoiler + What makes you good at this game is not the same as what makes you good in SC1. Just for example, players like MonDragon and TheStC have impressed more people with their few games than you have over the last year. Why? Because, however unrefined their play is, people see something in them that plays to the strengths of this game. Just by watching a few games of theirs, you just know if they invested the time they would be amazing at it, better than players like you. You get the feeling that they are playing at a level beyond their time. I STILL remember a game from theStC that Xeph streamed, where he slow pushes his Mech army across Shakuras against Genius, but instead of doing the same mind numbing style that every other Terran does, he would drop Planetary Fortresses and Barracks infront of his Army as he advanced. He would trap Stalkers by dropping Barracks behind their retreat path, he would split his Blue flame hellions to snipe Templar whilst avoiding Colossus splash at the same time. I've yet to see any Terran ever do something quite like that again. Anyway, I'm waffling on, but the point is, talent in this game is not the same as talent in SC1. You have people like Mondragon and TheStC, who have played so little yet leave more lasting impressions with a single game than you have in the last 3 months. Your entitlement of success just because you played SC1, however long you want to cling on to it, means nothing. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
Plus your examples seemed to be certainly fall within what would have made you good at SC2 as well, making your point completely moot | ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
| ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On May 05 2011 16:40 syllogism wrote: TheStc actually plays a lot despite being in army and plays just like any other top korean terran so he is a rather poor example. Mondragon hasn't shown anything special either; people just love himfrom BW and want to believe whatever he does it ingenious. How is that possible...To play a lot despite being in the military? Don't understand how you can say he plays like any other Korean Terran either, there was more buzz around him than any other terran. Just read the last one that was made about him, it was something like 4-5 pages and had nothing but praise, filled with people calling him the best Terran in Korea. And Mondragon hasn't shown anything special? Right... Spanishiwa is, apparently, gaining a lot of fans with his nonstandard play, but once again this doesn't mean his style is actually any good. Your argument isn't based on substance, but rather on "feeling". Plus your examples seemed to be certainly fall within what would have made you good at SC2 as well, making your point completely moot I guess you are right. What I'm basing this on has little to do with any kind of metric. It is something that you see. Spaniswha isn't quite the same, but I doubt there is anyone who watched the Mondragon games that wasn't impressed by him given how little he has played. Much the same with theStC. Either of those two do no not have the greatest mechanics, you can see they need oiling, but you see it in the replies they get from their games, you see it by the way people react to them, how people treat them. How much more people enjoy their games. How impressed people are. Talent. edit: no idea what you mean by the last line. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On May 05 2011 16:47 Dommk wrote: How is that possible...To play a lot despite being in the military? Don't understand how you can say he plays like any other Korean Terran either, there was more buzz around him than any other terran. Just read the last one that was made about him, it was something like 4-5 pages and had nothing but praise, filled with people calling him the best Terran in Korea. And Mondragon hasn't shown anything special? Right... Because he gets home every day at 4pm or whatever. He isn't in army fulltime. I like TheStc a lot and consider him one of the best terrans in Korea, but he plays just like everyone else and even if he didn't, I'm not sure I get your point. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:51 cronican wrote: 100 pages of "discussion" about this episode of SOTG. A new record? Its evidence that Idra is not good for SotG with the amount of crap he brings. He's a great player and all but his mindset epitomises that of most online gamers which is half the reason he has so many followers ("Hey Idra says xxxxx is OP/UP, that means I'm not bad at the game, it's just broken, Idra is hero") and the whole reason why he is bad at talking on shows like SotG. I did listen to it, and it was boring, everyone knows how and what Idra thinks and that it needs an intervention, which Geoff and Tyler briefly tried to do. The "What race did you play in BW? Which race was the weakest? What race do you play in SC2?...." was awesome. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On May 05 2011 16:55 MoonfireSpam wrote: Its evidence that Idra is not good for SotG with the amount of crap he brings. He's a great player and all but his mindset epitomises that of most online gamers which is half the reason he has so many followers ("Hey Idra says xxxxx is OP/UP, that means I'm not bad at the game, it's just broken, Idra is hero") and the whole reason why he is bad at talking on shows like SotG. Not good in what sense? He just tripled the viewer count. Is your point that because a vocal idra hating minority, which it certainly appears to be given his obvious popularity, complain following his appearances, it's is somehow bad for SotG | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On May 05 2011 15:12 jpditri wrote: [ The argument boiled down to whether or not the EG representative should have completely explained Liquid's absence in their most recent tournament. Obviously, Tyler felt that the EG rep should have acted more as a Forum Poster with Information, where Geoff felt that the appropriate response was to explain only the most brief overview, and not discuss the specifics of the disagreement. Once it became clear that the argument wasn't one that was going to be resolved through further discussion, JP should have stepped in, summarized, and moved on. After the first 10 minutes of the argument (especially after Tyler superfluously brought up post count and then Geoff occasionally picked that point to argue-- both even said on-air that the post count of a user shouldn't be a metric when evaluating the quality of a contribution) JP should have recognized that the argument had reached a point where the catalyst of the argument was no longer relevant and acted as the mediator and the host. The discussion got caught up in the drama of the original thread, and didn't end up discussing the philosophical differences between two disagreeing hosts. The real problem wasn't about the veracity of posters, or their motives. or their contributions to the site, or any of the other bullshit-- the question was whether or not a tournament should explain why Expected Team X isn't included on the roster. Tyler was upset because it looks bad when a world-class SC2 team isn't part of a tournament, and the only explanation available why is "we invited them, they declined." A team that declines solid tournaments for no good reason looks bad. When the EG rep didn't provide a good (any) reason, he felt it implicitly made the team look bad (and was antithetical to the information sharing nature of the forum format). Geoff felt that the responsibility of the league extended only as far as to explaining what happened and not why, because The Why is a private matter between the league and the team; he also felt that by having an EG representative explain for Liquid the reasons they declined that EG would be crossing the line and risk putting words in Liquid's collective mouth. I think you summarized Tyler's perspective much better than he did. Team Liquid holds the average poster to a pretty high standard. There is a tacit expectation for people around here to truthful, forthright, and generous with information. And if some is flat-out wrong, at least they're sincere and geniune about their stupidity.  I still think Tyler and the rest of the team over-reacted a little, but I can understand that perspective. Thanks. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On May 05 2011 16:47 Dommk wrote: How is that possible...To play a lot despite being in the military? Don't understand how you can say he plays like any other Korean Terran either, there was more buzz around him than any other terran. Just read the last one that was made about him, it was something like 4-5 pages and had nothing but praise, filled with people calling him the best Terran in Korea. And Mondragon hasn't shown anything special? Right... I guess you are right. What I'm basing this on has little to do with any kind of metric. It is something that you see. Spaniswha isn't quite the same, but I doubt there is anyone who watched the Mondragon games that wasn't impressed by him given how little he has played. Much the same with theStC. Either of those two do no not have the greatest mechanics, you can see they need oiling, but you see it in the replies they get from their games, you see it by the way people react to them, how people treat them. How much more people enjoy their games. How impressed people are. Talent. the problem here is that you and most people dont know what you're talking about. you dont understand those things "you see" also you have no idea how much people practice. | ||
|
RaLakedaimon
United States1564 Posts
| ||
|
Durn
Canada360 Posts
On May 05 2011 16:59 RaLakedaimon wrote: Yea I agree with syllogism on that, although I personally will tune out next time Idra starts doing that again it does really help viewer count since many people love the drama that it brings to the group. Also seemed nutty that he had like 14K on his live stream a little while after but this is the same conclusion I came to, people just love there drama. ^^ I still don't see the problem. I've read through the 20+ pages that this has genrrated and have yet to see a really strong refuting statement for what IdrA is saying. He wasn't being a bully, he wasn't being brash. He was being thorough and intelligent, and Day[9] was not meeting him halfway in that discussion. | ||
|
Hristiyan
99 Posts
Here is my suggestion how to fix the lack of scouting of the race: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2057506095 Very simple, very balanced by both sides, requires just a little change of the Pneomatized Carapace </Balance change suggestion> | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On May 05 2011 16:58 IdrA wrote: the problem here is that you and most people dont know what you're talking about. you dont understand those things "you see" also you have no idea how much people practice. But you do right? Enough to completely discredit anyone who wasn't good at SC1. Enough to give yourself some vain entitlement to being good at this game, right? I don't make assumptions about how much people practice. theStC said in an interview that he has stopped participating as much since enlisting in the military and would start again sometime in May. Mondragon also has talked about his limited time to practice. edit: meant to say participating, not practice | ||
|
fishjie
United States1519 Posts
On May 05 2011 14:55 Beef Noodles wrote: IdrA was being specific. He used actual examples. Day9 countered by being unspecific, saying "I just don't agree with that," "there must be some way" "zergs haven't explored everything yet." Keeping imbalance out of this (because IdrA might be right or wrong), at least IdrA argued correctly. He had real points, where as day9 simply repeated that he disagreed over and over again. Day9 kept saying that he "didn't have the time to explain why." That is a very dumb statement to make on a talk show while in the middle of an argument... From purely a debate angle, IdrA at least argued correctly (even if his points could be incorrect). Day9 had a horrible argument -- if it could even be called an argument. The only times day9 actually brought up real points, IdrA would counter with another point, then day9 would resort back to saying "I just disagree." Well, we know you disagree day9, EXPLAIN YOURSELF! That's what an argument is... If it were a graded debate, I would give day9 an F for not even really debating. I want to see someone come on the show who will actually bring real counter arguments to IdrA's points so we can have a good discussion going. That's because as Day 9 pointed out you can't debate with that kind of mentality. Idra was venting and whining as usual. Day 9 is not the kind of person to be malicious toward another and call them out on their bullcrap. Idra's been doing the same song and dance forever. He's a total scrub. A good scrub, but a scrub nonetheless. In his mind he is the best player ever, and anytime he loses, its to inferior opponents who suck. If he wins, its only natural. If he loses, its because his race sucks. How convenient. How can you possibly win against someone using that logic? If he believed half the crap he says about Zerg suck, he'd switch races. He'd be a moron not to, since he's doing this for a living. For perspective, in a game like Marvel vs Capcom 2, an arcade game that Capcom was NOT going to patch, where the lower tier simply can NOT compete with the top tier characters, NOBODY played low tier teams. People who did were in the minority and accepted that they would have to outplay their opponents. Anyone who played low tier and then whined when they lost was obviously an idiot. Likewise, if Zerg are as bad as Idra claims, what sort of pro gamer would play a race that would be such a huge handicap? That's eating into prize winnings. Of course, if he does switch races, then he can't make excuses when he loses, because then he'd just look like a total failure. Actually, he'd still whine that whatever race he plays is UP, because that's how he rolls. | ||
| ||
