|
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. |
On February 08 2011 21:17 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2011 21:09 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
Yeah, people tend to main a certain race so their understanding is better in those match ups then with off races, but do you honestly have such a cynical and jaded attitude that you think that they would intentionally slant the argument in order to favor one race over the other? Simple question, simple answer: yes People have always cried imbalance in order to buff their race. Since they make money out of it, you could even call this "rational", because a buffed race would guarantee them more money. Also it doesn't even matter if it's intentional. As a protoss-player, I'm 100% convinced that stimmed marauders are OP. Am I trying to troll or intentionally trying to buff my race against common sense? No. I'm I biased? Hell, of course I am.
But thats your problem. You can claim Marauders are OP, but the burden is on you to prove it. Artosis and Idra can back up with they say with experience or evidence. But the final say is still on the individual viewers shoulders, whether you feel it was enough or not.
|
Cranberries, you keep on ignoring the fact that high level players are biased towards their own race. It can be seen in every competitive game ever released.
The big difference is that Day9 doesn't have a history of bm and balance whine, Artosis and Idra do - and they both are biased towards the same race.
In S1 Idra said on twitter that Rainbow was giving away the win to FruitDealer.
He also said that NesTea had a easy group in S4 and that was the fact that he got as far as he did.
All these things are skewed to sound like it's always luck/circumstance when zerg is doing well, and them being underpowered when doing bad. Such a person isn't ideal for a show about game balance imo.
|
On February 08 2011 21:49 karpo wrote:
In S1 Idra said on twitter that Rainbow was giving away the win to FruitDealer.
He also said that NesTea had a easy group in S4 and that was the fact that he got as far as he did.
All these things are skewed to sound like it's always luck/circumstance when zerg is doing well, and them being underpowered when doing bad. Such a person isn't ideal for a show about game balance imo.
a) just a note: IdrA said expressively that Zerg doing well is based on luck/circumstance in his interview by artosis about why he left so fast vs jinro.
b) I somewhat share the feeling of bias towards IdrA and I seriously think Day9 offers maybe the best, most reliable information about the state of the game today. But this feeling alone must not be right. I'm especially confused about the reasons brought up in your post. Just imagine IdrA is right about Rainbow sucking vs Fruitdealer and NesTea getting lucky in the group phase. I haven't seen anyone "disprove" him, so to this point it's just a conclusion that seems somewhat reasonable if you've seen the games he's talking about. I'm not saying that he's 100% right, because I can't say that (or the opposite) for sure, but if he's right about his conclusions there's no reason to call him biased, because in that case it's no whine, just a profound conclusion. If you wanna call IdrA biased, you should come up with examples where he was OBVIOUSLY wrong, showing that he's just QQing, but to that point, I can only see a player who has hard feelings about balance, but that doesn't make him wrong.
|
I dont know if he still does but I have personally heard day9 call mules imbalanced on several occasions during dailies so for those claiming he doesn't whine Bout it are clearly wrong he does but more subtley. However I watched this first ep and artosis and idra are far from subtle this is not a bad thing this should be promoting discussion about collussus but most people take it as post to flame programers who have a lot more experience then most people (and surely me) on these forums at "the pro level" which is what they're discussing.
Just because the first episode focussed mainly on problems in ZvP doesn't mean the rest will time will tell if this "bias" continues. Genuinely looking forward to the next episode as it has given me more insight into how the pros view balance. I also remember hearing somewhere that boxer talks to David Kim about balance so the pros do have some input into changes for sure.
|
On February 08 2011 19:50 Cranberries wrote:
I don't understand why people would quote Day9's opinions as if they're anymore valid than IdrAs, or Artosis' opinion. If anything, IdrA's opinions (and to a lesser extent Artosis') are more valid, and have more validity, purely because both these players have seemed to accomplish "much more" than Day9 in SC2. I guess if people are mindless tools though, this is what happens.
Yeah it's weird how people will listen to one person more than another. It's almost like people have, I don't know, opinions based on a person's previous behaviour or something. It's almost like the fans of a given person are going to listen to that person's opinions. It's almost like it's blindingly obvious why people quote Day[9]. It's not because they're 'mindless tools' (way to be condescending by the way), it's because they like and respect him, both of which he has earned. I'm not seeing your problem with that.
If Day[9] said he thought something was overpowered, I would sit the fuck up and listen. Mostly because he has always stressed how unhelpful that mentality is and steered well away from it. IdrA on the other hand is the fucking physical manifestation of that mentality. Not to say I don't respect his opinion, obviously I do, and I like this show because they present their evidence and let the viewer decide. Whether the evidence they present is skewed by bias is another issue, but I think they argued their point pretty well.
|
I dont know if he still does but I have personally heard day9 call mules imbalanced on several occasions during dailies so for those claiming he doesn't whine Bout it are clearly wrong he does but more subtley.
You mean those times when he would say something like 'but hey it's ok if you lose your whole army and base as Terran, just float to the island and call down a bunch of mules, enjoy your 5-figure economy!'
That wasn't whining, that was joking.
|
|
|
If Terran is ok with Vikings then Zerg should be fine with Corruptors. Corruptors are a little faster, has 80 more life and do little more dps to a Collosus than a Viking if you use corruption, right? The Viking cost 25 less gas and has 3 more range. If an anti-air flying unit is supposed to be the only answer, I don't see why Zerg is any worse off than Terran.
edit: nevermind vikings do more damage than corruptors.
|
I didn't watch this whole video, I value Idra and Artosis's opinions greatly, but even in this video they're putting their opinions out there calmly and somewhat professionally, but they're still exaggerated. Artosis is the guy who thinks any major push off of two bases is all-in and is the guy who said in the second season that Kyrix didn't belong in the top sixteen of the GSL because he just "all-ined." He has a particular image of how the game should be played and it shows here. I don't know how seriously they'll be taken by anyone aside from the hardcore fans until they make it somewhat of a round table discussion. As it is what I heard is the same type of things I read from Idra on the forums, but just more professionally presented. I know it says in the OP to judge the content, but to my ears it's the same things I've heard over and over from them, but that's how i feel. Get me Incontrol, Nony, Gretorp, and Painuser on webcam, and Day9 to moderate (like he already isn't busy enough) and I'll pay attention. The time Painuser was on SOTG was when this type of thing really had my attention captured. Right now it just sounds like the same thinly veiled complaining that I hear every night from Artosis on the GSL. Put two republicans in front of a camera to debate about politics, and of coarse you're only going to get agreement about everything presented as facts that panders to a specific audience. No matter how calmly and professionally they present their woes, it's nothing but it's nothing but entertainment to reassure their supporters opinions and never going to seriously enlighten the opposition. Since I'm not Republican, no matter what it's just going to sound like republicans bitching about democrats. I'm not even talking about bias, because of coarse they're going to have bias and that's what makes it interesting. I just think this type of show is more interesting with both sides.
Maybe that's what Artosis is going for with this? Maybe he just wants to make entertainment with the discussion? There's no rule he has to try and form a round table discussion of all parties with balance discussion. It's his show after all. That's true, but I just don't think he's getting anyone on Zerg's side with this, regardless of the opinion they may have.
Also, content-wise, the discussion on here is so specific and narrowly focused with topics like "Colossi are too hard to deal with as Zerg". I think even without representatives of each race if this were to focus on a more high level view of game balance and theory discussion I would totally watch this and would be really interested to hear their take. Unfortunately, Artosis and Idra are to invested in their races and and specific units (which is not a slight against them in any way) that i don't know if that would ever work. When I say theory, I don't mean like theory-crafting, I mean like broad balance design discussion without even going into specific units and such. I think Artosis would be especially awesome for this with his extensive RTS background.
|
I'm fairly certain this is Idra and Artosis's way of trolling TL and giving aneurysms to all the mods due to all the bans that will inevitably have to be given out after each episode..
As far as balance goes, I feel that Colossi/Sentry/Stalker is no more imbalanced than the analogous current strategies of marine/tank/viking (nearly impossible to attack into), or ling/bling/muta. In a game like this, you invariably run into common strategies that are more effective than others. A game in which every unit combination is equally viable is a game that contains one race, with one attacking unit...
|
So Idra and Artosis thinks something is to strong against the faction they play........big surprise!
|
On February 08 2011 22:24 tgthan wrote:
If Terran is ok with Vikings then Zerg should be fine with Corruptors. Corruptors are a little faster, has 80 more life and do little more dps to a Collosus than a Viking if you use corruption, right? The Viking cost 25 less gas and has 3 more range. If an anti-air flying unit is supposed to be the only answer, I don't see why Zerg is any worse off than Terran.
this has been discussed over and over in this very thread.
Yes vikings are better than corruptor at sniping colossi, with slightly better dps even with corruption, and better range. Having more hp and armor mean nothing when you're only purpose is to snipe as fast as possible one unit. Vikings, with their range, can stay behind MMM/tank line.
And so on...
|
It's like people are actually blind to the 'address the content not the hosts' disclaimer at the top.
|
On February 08 2011 22:55 The KY wrote:
It's like people are actually blind to the 'address the content not the hosts' disclaimer at the top.
its like every other guy except artosis and idra would get perm banned for a thread with "content" like this
|
On February 08 2011 22:58 Heimatloser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2011 22:55 The KY wrote:
It's like people are actually blind to the 'address the content not the hosts' disclaimer at the top. its like every other guy except artosis and idra would get perm banned for a thread with "content" like this
Are you saying you don't know the difference between some random diamond protoss making a thread called 'Marauders OP' and 2 high level respected pillars of the community making a series explaining their perspective on balance in the game?
|
"Pillars of the community", don't make me laugh. One of these pillars is infamous for his bm and whine, and this is the one who's going to discuss balance without bias?
|
On February 08 2011 22:24 tgthan wrote:
If Terran is ok with Vikings then Zerg should be fine with Corruptors. Corruptors are a little faster, has 80 more life and do little more dps to a Collosus than a Viking if you use corruption, right? The Viking cost 25 less gas and has 3 more range. If an anti-air flying unit is supposed to be the only answer, I don't see why Zerg is any worse off than Terran.
You're downplaying the 25 gas cost.
Vikings cost 25% less gas than Corruptors.
For the same gas you spend on 3 Corruptors, you get 4 vikings. This is nothing to bat an eye over.
Then you look at what the Colossus actually does to the match.
vs Terran, Colossus rape through Marines and do mediocre vs everything else on the ground.
Vs Zerg, Colossus do mediocre vs Roaches/Ultralisks and rape through everything else on the ground.
Things are a little bit different in that comparison.
Now the most important units in contention here are the Marine and Hydralisk. These two units are the units that Z and T WANT to be making.
Not only are Marines hands-down better than Hydralisks, but Colossus actually do more damage to Hydralisks in comparison due to how much they cost!
Its pretty easy to see that the Colossus is OP vs Z, but can't be nerfed due to the strength of Terran bio, specifically the Marine.
Nerf both?
|
On February 08 2011 23:05 karpo wrote:
"Pillars of the community", don't make me laugh. One of these pillars is infamous for his bm and whine, and this is the one who's going to discuss balance without bias?
He's also one of the best players in the world. Take what he says with a pinch of salt if you want, but if he makes a video calmly explaining what he thinks is wrong with a match up and you dismiss it out of hand then you're the one who is biased.
|
On February 08 2011 23:05 karpo wrote:
"Pillars of the community", don't make me laugh. One of these pillars is infamous for his bm and whine, and this is the one who's going to discuss balance without bias?
You sure don't know a lot about Idra then. And for your 25th post it is not wise to bash on people. Almost everyone agrees that Idra, does have a sharp rational mind and is not biased. And his bm doesn't apply to what he thinks. If you get frustrated because you lose, even reapers can be imbalanced for you. But when you calm down you know better. So don't judge Idra on his bm like that shows how he judge the game.
|
On February 08 2011 22:08 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +I dont know if he still does but I have personally heard day9 call mules imbalanced on several occasions during dailies so for those claiming he doesn't whine Bout it are clearly wrong he does but more subtley. You mean those times when he would say something like 'but hey it's ok if you lose your whole army and base as Terran, just float to the island and call down a bunch of mules, enjoy your 5-figure economy!' That wasn't whining, that was joking. He may have been joking but there is an element of truth to it. Tasteless stated that he felt mules should be on a cooldown on his Facebook page when asked what still needs to be tweaked and I think I've heard it elsewhere too. I think a cooldown for mules makes perfect sense. It puts it more inline with larva injects and chronoboost where you have to be somewhat responsible with it. I think it would be an interesting discussion if Artosis and IdrA talked about mules in comparison the other macro abilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
