EPTIMBALANCED! - Introduction - Page 49
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content. You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical. Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. | ||
|
Gentso
United States2218 Posts
| ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
Make a controversial show with a title of "IMBALANCED" of a video that is effectively just two guys on a couch summing up some discussion they likely had ... and he gets many times the traffic in views and probably a ton more subs... Sometimes I hate how the internet works. /sigh On the subject of the content... I'd love to see them expand on any claims they make, perhaps expand on the ideas with replays of them or other pro players playing. I obviously don't play at Artosis or Idras level, but I'd love to see games so viewers could see the timings that otherwise we might just not be able to hit (or lack of timings). | ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On February 05 2011 06:53 Gentso wrote: I really don't see the problem... if you don't want to hear about their opinions on balance then you don't have to. It's just two people sharing their opinions on the game. It's probably biased, but so what? You just don't have to watch it, plain and simple. What difference does it make? I didn't see the bias though. IdrA feels it's really strong in PvZ to the point that it's unbearable because of it's range and the fact that Hydras melt to it, and the tons of Corruptors needed to wipe it away is too high that your ground army suffers, but he also points out that Gateway units would need some power to compensate for it being weakened in PvZ if that happened. He also notes that in PvT, Colossus is great because it handles the bio units, but Terran also has a solid answer to it with Vikings, so the balance in that matchup is much better in his opinion. Artosis feels that the Colossus could get figured out in PvZ on the Z side and it still is probably too early to tell if it's really imbalanced. IdrA even concedes to this possibility, citing ret's experimentation with Infestors as a potential, and generally concessions are a solid part of a good argument, but he still sticks to his original claim. That does not sound biased. Just because IdrA feels the Colossus is overpowered in PvZ does not immediately make his claims bad because of bias. If he can give good reasons to why it's overpowered, then whatever. | ||
|
maniac1122
United States111 Posts
On February 05 2011 05:50 RifleCow wrote: How would a protoss death ball fare if there were no sentries in the mix? What about building 10-12 mutas and sniping the sentries before engaging. Like say you build 5 corrupters and 12 mutalisks then set the corrupters to attack the collosus and mutas to attack the sentries. Don't know if it will work but its worth a shot if anyone wants to try it out. ..no Buff the corruption spell, and you have yourself a fixed matchup imo. Seeing how that spell is directly engineered to counter massive units, it will nullify the collossui without the need of entire map pool changes or finding the magical "sweet spot" of how many corruptors you need | ||
|
dunc
Netherlands1105 Posts
On February 05 2011 05:36 WhiteDog wrote: Sure, making warpgate a mid game end game upgrade, nerfing colossus a bit, with zealot at 100/80 hp/shield again and buffing sentry/stalker a bit should be a freeking good idea. Are you serious? This would completely ruin the race. | ||
|
Magictek
United States17 Posts
I think the map pool does have a tendency to help the Colossus. I think the way to approach this might be the idea that zerg does not have to directly engage the ball and instead attack where the slower Colossus is not at and rebuild a working base quick after the ball runs the main base over or maybe try using nydus more although i think the canal exits should be cheaper. And I would LOVE bringing the scourge back!!! that would make they think twice about building too many colossus =P | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On February 05 2011 02:26 MorroW wrote: nerf colosus/high templar/force field buff everything else in midgame (what i mean by that is that you cant straight up buff zealot cause then early game is imbalanced, u have to think out some fancy upgrade for zealots past charge to make it not-useless past early game) i dont talk about extreme nerfs or buffs here. small ones are enough to give more options i just want it to be possible for a protoss to fight a zerg without abusing colosus or FF like a mad man. but whenever they dont have these 2 key things zealots/stalkers etc are complete trash compared to my hydra roach combo in zvt u have tons of choices how you want to battle and make ur unit compositions, most things work great. but as soon as protoss enters mid/late game u have to sit there and only focus on colosus and FF cause thats way better than everything else colossus is pretty much the most bullshit unit for the cost inthe game right now. it deals tons of damage, sick range, really fast and mobile, long sight range and sees up cliffs. tank: doesnt have long sight and its not mobile at all ultralisk: melee, not as mobile thor: not as much range, lot less mobile, no splash to ground all of them cost similar food cost (except tank) but yet the colosus is still alot better than the rest but then go and compare zealot/stalker to marauder/rine or hydra/roach. then toss has no chanse at all. toss has no chance to fight low tier vs low tier, and ithink thats a problem (i dont talk about earlygame) I really like the idea of buffing protoss core stuff and nerfing their fancy stuff....what do you ppl think about giving stalkers +2 instead of +1 for each attack-upgrade? While nerfing the said fancy stuff of course (dunno how). On zealots this can't work because they would be OP against terran, I suppose. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On February 05 2011 05:33 TimeSpiral wrote: [/b]I don't think all the aspects of mobility are being understood by some of the posters here ... • If Protoss has 20 warpgates and needs 40 supply worth of units, he can pretty much have that anywhere he has psi-power and can tailor his composition on the spot and in whatever formation he wants. Heck, everything that comes out of the Robo Fac basically flies with the exception of the immortal (cargo space 4, like a siege tank). . The concept of mobility extends beyond movement speed. I'm not sure you were exagerating on purpose or not, but that makes little sense either way: 1) Only gateway units can be warped in, which, has you know aren't particularly good aggainst good army compositions of T or Z. Also, at Mid-late game players generally don't go around with more than 10 gates, as they have other military builds, be it robo or stargates. 2) The speed of a army is the speed of its slowest unit. Mid late game it should be colossus / templar, which are some if not the slowest units IG, taking out unupgraded OL, and queen of creep, and those don't go with the main army anyway. 3) Depending on the drop, warping in can be bad or good. If the drop wins the warping in units, then you have to wait for the whole army. Both terran and zerg can do massive drops, and the only response is bring back all the army or counter attack. Both terran and zerg have it easier going back to the base. | ||
|
SolidZeal
United States393 Posts
I think the timing of the video is strange. The new maps for GSL will greatly effect the way match ups are played. I don't care as much about the current map pool balance, at least not for high level balance discussion They made sure that you knew they were talking about the current map pool for a reason. I expect the zerg counters for collosus will be made more powerful on the new large maps given the way they describe them playing out. I look forward to seeing the new meta-game for pro level play. If a change is made, I would suggest an actual buff to corruption. Maybe make it deal low damage like fungal growth. It would make corruptors a more interesting unit anyway. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
the problem with cols that i can see is that there DPS is to fucking high for a range 9 unit. maybe a decrease in there speed of atk should help things. i mean its to a point where enought colls can just fry anything and everything including armored units. that shouldnt happen. in SC1 reavers had a very slow rate of fire and they moved extremly slow but had devastating hits, so you really had to baby sit a reaver at all times for it to be useful in SC1. id like the cols to be more like that. a hard hitting unit but with a slow rate of fire. just my opinion tho. something needs to be done about there DPS, its way to high. | ||
|
Gentso
United States2218 Posts
| ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:12 Apolo wrote: 2) The speed of a army is the speed of its slowest unit. Mid late game it should be colossus / templar, which are some if not the slowest units IG, taking out unupgraded OL, and queen of creep, and those don't go with the main army anyway. Why do people grossly under-estimate the mobility of a Colossus? It ignores cliffs so that by itself gives it the ability to get away by not having to go around cliffs. The units that bog down the Protoss army are Zealots pre-charge, Sentries, and High Templar. Colossus are so much more mobile, they actually don't bog down the army that much. Their huge range and ability to walk over other units means they don't have to be right up in the ball like the others do, so it gives them leeway. The Colossus is one of the slowest units in the game of course, along with the Marine, Marauder, Ghost, Hydra (off creep), regular Zealots, regular Roach (off creep), Sentry, Immortal...The only unit that bogs down the army is the Sentry or High Templar (which a Warp Prism could help in the HT's case, then again that also means Vikings can go boom). So, in mid or late game, the Colossus is far from the unit that bogs the army down. Its movement speed is the same as a lot of units, but its mobility is usually higher than theirs because those units have to consider cliffs and other units in the composition when moving, where the Colossus just ignores both for the most part. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
| ||
|
Sigmur
Poland497 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:24 Gentso wrote: What if forcefields had a certain amount of health so you can break it down, or just lasted less? I can agree with that idea, but then buff gateway units, so you wouldn't be so dependant from forcefields. Topic: Great show, I really respect Artosis as both a player and starcraftwiki, but Idra is not the right pick to talk about balance. Looking forward for second episode tho. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
EDIT: It doesn't matter if the void rays in the comp can fly, if the zealots have speed and are quick like the stalkers are, and the colossus can climb cliffs, because the sentries are slow and can't do any of the above. You leave those sentries behind, and bam, you get smashed. You walk the colossus up cliffs and leave the rest of your forces behind, you get those colossus sniped, or your gateway units get demolished. It's lose lose for mobility to use a colossus ball. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:05 dunc wrote: Are you serious? This would completely ruin the race. It would improve the game, tenfolds. Protosses would have *gasp* options. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
The game is, and should be, broken in many different ways, which needs adressing, i wish more pros would contribute to stuff like this. Saying that Idra and Artosis are biased, well no shit, who's not biased towards their race, btw Artosis is mostly P as of late, and more of a pro commentator then a pro player. The fact they still try to stay as objective as possible and as politically correct as possible is admirable. The Colossi is one of the most ridicuolus units, and their conclusion was that it might be a little bit too strong, at least it might be one-dimensionalizing Protoss play. You simply can't get any softer then that if you talk about balance. Disregard the hate please, just make more videos like this, i'm interested. It would be nice if you'd get some other guys on the show too | ||
|
maahes`ra
United States255 Posts
On February 05 2011 05:58 Saechiis wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 05 2011 00:11 maahes wrote: Hiding all this in a spoiler because it feels like the thread has gone to a better place. Keep testing shit out, Blacklizard. You are awesome. Can you share with me your methods? Like, did you use a custom map or whatnot? + Show Spoiler + On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote: What Saechiis said because this is getting huge. If your post was succinct enough to address all at once, I would have done so. You said a lot and it would have been shortsighted not to break up such a robust post and point out examples as they showed up. I disagree about there being an issue with doing so, however - suggesting that people can't take what you say and analyze it on a point-by-point basis and instead must appreciate it as a whole means that there is an excess of things which should be left out. I participate in other communities where doing exactly this is a bannable offense (elitistjerks). What could have been removed is what I addressed, broken up, in my original post, and I definitely got your point - I highlighted where I thought you stated it, and responded to it on its own. That being said, the bulk of your 'thoughts' don't make sense or follow the pattern of a snide comment and then repeating what you said in the first place, neither of which address anything I said. I'm going to bury another point-by-point in a spoiler. + Show Spoiler + On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote: First of all, I never questioned IdrA and Artosis' credentials; I questioned their ability to objectively judge balance. I've even commented on their talent as Zerg players, which gets lost in your selectiveness of quoting. It's frankly a baseless accusation aimed at damaging my credibility, "violating many rules of debate and offering little in the way of legitimate criticism" along the way. As for the dramatic claims of ad-hominem; questioning someone's ability to be objective in the subjectiveness that surrounds balance, is a completely valid concern. Especially when it comes to two iconic community figures discussing (im)balance on a public stage. I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming amount of people would testify that Artosis and IdrA, over the last decade, have had a tendency of being overly vocal and extreme in their claims of imbalance; most notably the overpoweredness of the other races in relation to their own. As such, it isn't exactly a stretch to question their objectiveness in judging imbalance while it IS a stretch to expect viewers to believe there not being a hidden agenda. They're grown men and they're completely responsible for their own public image. If they're not judging balance they should say so, because several thousands of people "somehow" got the idea that that's what their show "IMBALANCE" is all about. Calling into question objectivity is an attack on source instead of an attack upon argument - a source's objectivity counts as a credential. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false. Idra and Artosis being balance whiners do not affect the absolute truth of their analysis. Another thing that your arguments fixate upon is 'judgment'. Artosis and Idra hold no absolute judgment over Starcraft 2, and the show is actually painfully devoid of judgment, even from Idra, the most inflammatory personality in all of esports. I agree that bias is definitely questionable when someone is trying to convince you of something, but my critical thinking didn't sound that alarm for IMBALANCED. Both the content of the video and the method of presentation are not of a persuasive effort, but instead an exchange of opinions with reasoning. Within the first minute and a half, Artosis explains that, "We want to inform people, show you, the professional player perspective." A few minutes later, he goes on to open the distinct colossus talk with, "... talking about something that, y'know, may or may not be imbalanced." If they opened with an explicit, 'This is why the Colossus is game-breakingly imba in PvP/Z,' and closed with 'And so you should go +1 this thread on the Blizzard forums until there's a patch!' then everything changes, and it moves from a discussion to something that -is- detrimental. As it is, no matter what they say, anyone can rebut with 'Well, that doesn't make sense, and I have an argument to the contrary.' On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote: You realize that stating something as if it's a fact doesn't make it true right? Because making unfounded conclusions would "violate many rules of debate" and would "offer little in the way of legitimate criticism". Additionally, the race preference of the hosts is completely relevant since, in regards to balance, there isn't any hard truths in a complex game like Starcraft. There's only a collection of anecdotal arguments and subjective judgements on how hard it is to do something. For instance: IdrA states it's relatively too hard to balance corrupter count with Colossi in comparison to what Toss has to do. I think results show that when it comes to competence of play, Artosis is a perfectly valid Protoss source given his recent almost-qualification for Code A. A lot of the other things you say here don't really make sense. There are no hard truths in a complex game? There are a handful of things cited in this episode - original warpgate research timing, 'alpha roaches' - were these not distinctly excessively strong? Idra actually states the opposite of what you refer to: "It feels like it's much, much easier for Protoss to deal with that situation than Zerg." This is an important distinction - far less incriminating than something being 'too hard'. On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote: Saying that it "was actually already assumed" is just another way of admitting that the show lacked a non-Zerg perspective on the case, which is what I pointed out in the first place. I never implied they were saying the Colossus is "fundamentally broken", nor did I imply that they were saying the Colossus should be removed, nor that it doesn't need the damage it provides ... seems a bit pointless to point out things they've never said when I never implied they did. I did imply their show is, unsurprisingly, Zerg-focused and that it might be useful to clearly point out that Colossi balance out the relative weakness of gateway units. As to not give people the idea that balance is as one dimensional as "unit A has dual ranged laz0rz WITH splash, this game is ridiculous". The need to have ranged splash damage during midgame and the fact that Colossi are cheaper, faster and safer to tech to than Storm was my reasoning behind the popularity of Colossi, as to not imply they're built much because they're too strong. At your first sentence, and the bulk of this, just... no. Not at all. The context of the discussion was Colossus and its effects, and the buildup to this decision point in the metagame is discussed. Protoss had vulnerability to mass Mutalisk and a set of timings until Toss players developed safe expansion builds. -Then- the ball was thrown back into the Zerg court, wherein Idra, Artosis and Ret had substantial success with 3 Base Broodlord builds, throwing the decision back into Toss play, and they responded with Blink Stalkers. I think this is an awesome way of outlining the metagame shift, and it also highlights the strength of the Colossus by example instead of just hearsay. That said, this is some high-level shit - they don't need to explain that the warpgate units need support (even though Idra does explain that once the colossus are taken care of, the resulting warpgate army is "weak"). This show isn't meant for the bitter, six-pooling bronze leaguer, and it's evident. Additionally, your unprovoked insistence that colossus are needed by the protoss suggested that you thought it was insisted otherwise. I assumed we were at the same point in the discussion - how Zerg can best respond to Colossi. I don't really see the point of extra details like this, and if a dedicated Toss would have had that to say, I would have been pretty disappointed. If that's all that they can bring, that's solid evidence to the contrary of a United Nations of hosts. On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote: That's right, you don't know whether he's right, in fact, no-one can say with certainty that they're right. Which brings us back to the questioning of the objectivity of the show. For the rest, I've never touched upons IdrA's conclusion, so summing it up doesn't really serve a purpose. We know that IdrA knows how to play Zerg. Actually, since the purpose (and content, somehow) of the show is discussion, it brings us to discussion, not judging the people who provided an initial opinion. Bringing up Idra's conclusion serves a very important purpose - 'The Colossus gives favor at the moment to P in PvZ, but there are two distinct routes (unit comp, heavy harassment styles) that should be explored in order to throw the ball back into 'Toss court.' This is pretty much the opposite of 'judgment', something you continually question and state Idra and Artosis have no right to do. This is Idra trying to predict the next shift in the metagame. This is actually extremely proactive and the community you claim will misuse this media would do very well to begin thinking in such a way, as some in this thread have already begun testing. On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote: Being a community celebrity has already given IdrA and Artosis significant amounts of leniency and attention. It should, however, not be a carte blanche to do whatever they please in the community. For instance, offensive, childish and flamebaiting posts are still unwanted on the forums, regardless of who does it. Doing a show on IMBALANCE knowing full well how it's going to affect SC communities, could also be described as such. I've got little more than surprise at this, honestly. Reread what I had to say about the SC community in my first response. Also, in Artosis's own words, he is the most legit motherfucker around when it comes to SC, and in the words of those much more qualified than myself, anyone thinking that they love starcraft more than Artosis is completely and totally incorrect. Not implying you ever claimed that - I only mean you'll have to do better to convince me any malicious intent went into this, and the fact that you accuse these guys of having some ulterior motive totally stuns me. As I wrote this out, I started to discern more and more where we diverge. I would agree with you totally if this were two gamedevs talking about the future of balance, casually talking about the judgment they had passed and the changes destined to be made, people with some serious swing - it would be very reminiscent of any video interviews with Riot about League of Legends, for example. I'm not - as is no one that actually winds up using this media constructively - listening to this video going 'oh fuck yeah, colossi are totally imba.' I watched a video of a conversation between two guys essentially shooting the breeze, being totally reasonable and making sure not to drop strong opinions without a basis, discussing a single unit in depth and in both terms of 'imbalance' - being too strong for a matchup, and being so strong in mirror there is no alternative strategy. To me, and many others, that is awesome. Those that were looking for ammunition to cry are going to find it - but I promise you, none of them needed it. Rereading your first post, I see someone that is convinced the hosts are using an inflammatory topic to rake in Youtube views or something. Where you see Artosis eager to utter 'imbalance', I see the same excitable dork that gets geek chills all day erry day while casting GSL. To each their own, I guess, but I can't help but point out the views you harbor are so much worse than the bitter ignorance of someone new to the game complaining about issues they don't understand. Anyway, hypocrisy isn't so bad. I didn't want to refer to your post towards beetlelisk because it was so disgusting that I couldn't respond to it without going ad hominem. Nazgul posted something that might have been funny as a friendly jab at Artosis & Idra, but it set a terrible precedent for moderation in a thread already covered in shit wall to wall. Beetle was right to criticize, really, and what he asked for was actually a good jump for insight in terms of how Ret was doing. Your response, wherein you jumped down his throat with no provocation and spewed hate for the subjects of the original post in addition to revealing a crusade against 'zerg whiners', was just repulsive to me and your insults/rebuttals of his frustration were so poorly formed I was once again taken aback. This was an interesting exercise in critical thinking, but there is nothing else to be gleaned from picking apart your logic. Thanks for your time. I'm getting a bit annoyed at responding to your posts as they're full of false assumptions, ad-hominem, refutations of arguments I never made and overall presentation of your opinion as a factual source. As such I'm going to adress your post in the most basic fashion: Calling into question objectivity is an attack on source instead of an attack upon argument - a source's objectivity counts as a credential. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false. Idra and Artosis being balance whiners do not affect the absolute truth of their analysis. Since your posts hinge 90% on the notion that "ad-hominem" voids my argumentation, I'll adress that concern first. I see you copy pasted a snippet from wikipedia regarding ad-hominem. I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised, that you would leave out the section that disproves your point completely. Allow me to quote said section of wikipedia: "Circumstantial Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[citation needed] The circumstantial fallacy only applies where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]" In other, basic, words: IMBALANCED! is a show where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation. As such the "ad-hominem" questioning their objectivity in regards to balance, is completely valid. In fact, your false accusations of "fallacious ad-hominem" constitute as an ad-hominem themselves, not to mention your classy tattle tail at the end. But then again, you already admitted to being hypocritical. Secondly: + Show Spoiler + Another thing that your arguments fixate upon is 'judgment'. Artosis and Idra hold no absolute judgment over Starcraft 2, and the show is actually painfully devoid of judgment, even from Idra, the most inflammatory personality in all of esports. I agree that bias is definitely questionable when someone is trying to convince you of something, but my critical thinking didn't sound that alarm for IMBALANCED. Both the content of the video and the method of presentation are not of a persuasive effort, but instead an exchange of opinions with reasoning. Within the first minute and a half, Artosis explains that, "We want to inform people, show you, the professional player perspective." A few minutes later, he goes on to open the distinct colossus talk with, "... talking about something that, y'know, may or may not be imbalanced." I brought up the notion that IdrA and Artosis have a decade long history of vocally judging balance in both BW and Starcraft 2. As well as the history of people taking their opinion and throwing them around on the forum as proof of imbalance. I never implied they weren't smart enough to walk the line between obvious bias and passable objectivity. An exchange of opinions is useless if the only participants already agree with eachother, which is why I adress the concern of the show being too Zerg-centered. I think results show that when it comes to competence of play, Artosis is a perfectly valid Protoss source given his recent almost-qualification for Code A. First off, it's kind of hard to judge the credibility of an "almost-qualification". Secondly, Artosis plays Protoss because he thinks Zerg is underpowered. If Protoss got nerfed, he wouldn't have any regrets whatsoever to revisit his main race. A lot of the other things you say here don't really make sense. There are no hard truths in a complex game? There are a handful of things cited in this episode - original warpgate research timing, 'alpha roaches' - were these not distinctly excessively strong? If you read my complete sentence instead of selectively quoting a part, it would read: "Additionally, the race preference of the hosts is completely relevant since, in regards to balance, there isn't any hard truths in a complex game like Starcraft. " The notion that original warpgate research was too fast and alpha roaches too strong is still opiniative, so it's your post that doesn't really make sense. 99% of balance talk revolves around subjective measurements of how much skill certain tasks require. Balance isn't factual by any means. Idra actually states the opposite of what you refer to: "It feels like it's much, much easier for Protoss to deal with that situation than Zerg." This is an important distinction - far less incriminating than something being 'too hard'. First of all, do you want to testify that this IdrA quote is a pure objectiv "hard-truth" assesment of the situation? And not, in fact, a subjective measurement of skill requirements that is very much reliant on IdrA's credibility as an objective source? Secondly, how is saying "It's harder for Zerg" different from "It's easier for Protoss" -_-' At your first sentence, and the bulk of this, just... no. Not at all. The context of the discussion was Colossus and its effects, and the buildup to this decision point in the metagame is discussed. Protoss had vulnerability to mass Mutalisk and a set of timings until Toss players developed safe expansion builds. -Then- the ball was thrown back into the Zerg court, wherein Idra, Artosis and Ret had substantial success with 3 Base Broodlord builds, throwing the decision back into Toss play, and they responded with Blink Stalkers. I think this is an awesome way of outlining the metagame shift, and it also highlights the strength of the Colossus by example instead of just hearsay. That said, this is some high-level shit - they don't need to explain that the warpgate units need support (even though Idra does explain that once the colossus are taken care of, the resulting warpgate army is "weak"). This show isn't meant for the bitter, six-pooling bronze leaguer, and it's evident. What's with the "just no. Not at all" followed by a slab of text that has no relation to what I said in at all? It gives people the idea that you're making a point even though it's not even a response to the quoted text. I make the argument that the show is too much focused on the Zerg point of view, you respond by enumerating unit compositions and timings they mentioned as being relevant for a Zerg going up against Colossus. Yeah ... that's my point, they purely discuss the trouble Zerg has with Colossi and how this could be remedied. There's never any discussion on why Protoss are using Colossi, how they use them, the troubles they'd face without a strong ranged AoE DPS unit, the relative skill it requires to manage Colossi and forcefields. And since you're so insistent in claiming there's not a heavily Zerg-sided view in this show, I'm going to be very childish and literally count the amount of time spent discussing the differing MU's so there's no dodging the argument: 0:00 - 8:20 Introduction PvT: 8:20 - 9:30 1 minute 10 seconds. ZvP: 9:30 - 23:30 14 minutes (not to be confused with the PvZ matchup) PvP: 23:30 - 27:00 3 minutes 30 seconds 27:00 - 29:27 Epilogue They brush aside PvT Colossi saying it's just balanced there since Bio counters Gateway, Colossi counters Bio, Vikings counter Colossi and Gateway counters Vikings. And yeah, that's it, it's balanced guys so we're moving on. I could say that the same counters exist in Roach/ Hydra counters Gateway, Colossi counters Roach/ Hydra, Corrupters counter Colossi, Gateway counters Corrupters. But since Artosis and IdrA have a much deeper understanding of that MU, they can talk about the intricacies of the Zerg's unit compositions, map dependancy, economical requirements to effectively counter Colossi and the difficulty of creating " just enough" Corrupters. It's not like these intricacies only exist in ZvP; their knowledge of the TvP and PvP MU's is just too limited to make definite statements about it, plus they're not interested in those MU's in the first place. Which all leads back to my point that the show is too Zerg-centered and that you can't approach balance from 1 side. Let's not pretend that most of the viewers are going to be high-level Master League players, they're going to be mostly lower levels of players that only know 1 side of the MU and might see ZvP as "the Protoss just makes Colossi and roflstomps me". This thread already exploded with rage and people claiming that Colossi are "indeed overpowered", doesn't that prove the show is having a negative effect on the community? Additionally, your unprovoked insistence that colossus are needed by the protoss suggested that you thought it was insisted otherwise. I assumed we were at the same point in the discussion - how Zerg can best respond to Colossi. I don't really see the point of extra details like this, and if a dedicated Toss would have had that to say, I would have been pretty disappointed. If that's all that they can bring, that's solid evidence to the contrary of a United Nations of hosts. No, it insisted that they didn't bring it up, as in, they didn't bring up the Protoss side of ZvP at all. That they're revolving the show around " how Zerg can best respond to Colossi" is kinda the point. Actually, since the purpose (and content, somehow) of the show is discussion, it brings us to discussion, not judging the people who provided an initial opinion. Bringing up Idra's conclusion serves a very important purpose - 'The Colossus gives favor at the moment to P in PvZ, but there are two distinct routes (unit comp, heavy harassment styles) that should be explored in order to throw the ball back into 'Toss court.' This is pretty much the opposite of 'judgment', something you continually question and state Idra and Artosis have no right to do. This is Idra trying to predict the next shift in the metagame. This is actually extremely proactive and the community you claim will misuse this media would do very well to begin thinking in such a way, as some in this thread have already begun testing. Agian, a one-sided nod-fest isn't a discussion, discussions happen when there's people with different backgrounds and opinions. Bringing up IdrA's conclusion wasn't relevant since I never talked about his conclusion and it doesn't relate in any way to my claims. Hence I told you it wasn't relevant to my post. And now you respond to that by saying "Yeah, actually it serves a very important purpose" and then you summarize his quote again? IdrA's conclusions don't relate to my points! I've got little more than surprise at this, honestly. Reread what I had to say about the SC community in my first response. Also, in Artosis's own words, he is the most legit motherfucker around when it comes to SC, and in the words of those much more qualified than myself, anyone thinking that they love starcraft more than Artosis is completely and totally incorrect. Not implying you ever claimed that - I only mean you'll have to do better to convince me any malicious intent went into this, and the fact that you accuse these guys of having some ulterior motive totally stuns me. Ugh, what does this prove? So Artosis sees himself as the most legit motherfucker around when it comes to SC ... so what? "and in the words of those more qualified than myself, anyone thinking that they love starcraft more than Artosis is completely and totally incorrect." You mean Artosis saying no-one loves Starcraft more than him proves that everyone who disagrees is completely and totally incorrect? That's some solid argumentation right there. As the 50 pages of crap in this thread might indicate, there were more people sceptical about two of the most notorious balance "whiners" in the Starcaft community starting a show on IMBALANCE! Pretending that it's far-fetched doesn't help your point at all. Anyway, hypocrisy isn't so bad. Maybe not on elitistjerks, but on TL it isn't applauded. (Mods, please note he says he's part of that community ^^) I didn't want to refer to your post towards beetlelisk because it was so disgusting that I couldn't respond to it without going ad hominem. Nazgul posted something that might have been funny as a friendly jab at Artosis & Idra, but it set a terrible precedent for moderation in a thread already covered in shit wall to wall. Beetle was right to criticize, really, and what he asked for was actually a good jump for insight in terms of how Ret was doing. Your response, wherein you jumped down his throat with no provocation and spewed hate for the subjects of the original post in addition to revealing a crusade against 'zerg whiners', was just repulsive to me and your insults/rebuttals of his frustration were so poorly formed I was once again taken aback. This was an interesting exercise in critical thinking, but there is nothing else to be gleaned from picking apart your logic. Thanks for your time. Nazgul posted what everyone was thinking, and it wasn't an unfair note at all. Since you're still refusing to quote said posts whilst continuing to exaggerate the "dsgustingness" of my reaction, I'll do it myself: + Show Spoiler + On February 03 2011 14:21 Saechiis wrote: You realize you're the iconic mindless Zerg follower that people are talking about right? Your post defending IdrA and Artosis is ironic in so many ways. 1. You're telling Nazgul; the founder of the team and the website you're currently surfing on that you're dissapointed in him and that he should be ashamed of himself? Not only does this insult break the same "rules of posting" which you're criticizing him for breaking. It also takes an enormous amount of blind IdrA worship to not even see the irony in accusing Nazgul of bad posting while IdrA himself is the most offensive poster to ever to have roamed TL, breaking a minimum of 1 rule for every post he makes. 2. It's funny that you put Artosis and IdrA on a high pedestal for creating content for "free" whilst kicking down Nazgul who founded TeamLiquid and has been upkeeping and expanding both the site and the team for free during the last decade. 3. Neither Nazgul, nor any other critical poster had anything negative to say about the effort or the production value of the show. Just the complaint that Artosis and IdrA, as known balance "whiners" since the early days of Starcraft, aren't exactly the most objective source for balance discussion. You, and some other whiners for that matter, have managed to totally fulfill the biggest fear that people had in regards to this show; namely an increase in irrational Zerg whine posts. In this case, totally taking posts out of context because you can't handle the critical tone and verbally assaulting the rational posters that are already so scarce on this website. Thanks for proving my point. In other words, Nazgul comments on the fact that IdrA and Artosis never seem to see OP'ness in their own race of play. Beetlelisk replies to that by flying of the handle and commenting that Nazgul is biased himself; quotes: "AS YOU ARE HIS MANAGER AND YOU ARE THE NUMBER ONE PERSON RESPOSNIBLE FOR EXPOSING YOUR PLAYERS" "you gave a green light to every single retarded faggot who wants to derail this thread" "After showing how you handle the LR threads and not only them, you did this?" "I am extremely dissapointed in you as an admin. You should be ashamed of yourself Nazgul." Which is frankly not an acceptable way to talk to anyone on these forums, let alone Nazgul. Hence I asked him whether "he realized that he was the iconic mindless Zerg follower that people were talking about" and that his posts were "ironic". Saying that my words are disgusting whilst portraying Beetlelisks post as fair and constructive kinda shows how objective you are in your posting, not to mention that tattle-tailing is very classy. As I said before, if there's problems with my posting the mods are perfectly capable of identifying them and confronting me. Yet Beetlelisk is the one that got banned. Kudos to people that have read all this  Response: + Show Spoiler + There is nothing else to be said about this. You've made, essentially, the same post a third time, and it continues to be empty. Looking through your posts, I don't think we're having the same discussion and never were. The only meat of your original post was that you felt such a discussion of balance was only going to be negative and that the people having that discussion, if it occurs at all, have to be wholly objective and understand the ease or difficulty from both ends of every matchup. Somehow, this one sentence turned into multiple paragraphs. It's a sentiment that I understand, constructive and valid, regardless of whether I agree or disagree. When it's surrounded with things like accusing the hosts of having an ulterior motive, claiming that ignoring the obvious amounts to misunderstanding/ignorance or using their history as balance whiners to discredit their arguments, this original sentiment gets lost in a swell of personal/ineffective/obtuse criticism. You made - and continue to make - a convincing point for why Idra and Artosis shouldn't be allowed to be balance designers or spokespeople for Blizzard, but not for why they can't be two dudes in front of a camera talking about the biggest problems they're having in competitive Starcraft. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On February 05 2011 08:04 hifriend wrote: It would improve the game, tenfolds. Protosses would have *gasp* options. The only problem with that is your buffing 4 gate doing that. I dunno how blizzard could balance it out so toss can have options and not have to go colossi every game to fight roach/hydra. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On February 05 2011 07:10 sleepingdog wrote: I really like the idea of buffing protoss core stuff and nerfing their fancy stuff....what do you ppl think about giving stalkers +2 instead of +1 for each attack-upgrade? While nerfing the said fancy stuff of course (dunno how). On zealots this can't work because they would be OP against terran, I suppose. Completely agree with MorroW, and I'd really like to see better core P units and less emphasis on abusing colo/ff. Nerfing those with buffs to the rest would be pretty interesting. The stalker upgrade scaling better would be a start, but I doubt it would be enough to suddenly let zeal/stalker (with reduced FFs) trade shots with marine/marauder or hydra/roach. | ||
| ||
