On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
"were the rest just makes statements" - Slightly ironic. Do you have any proof that everyone but TheDWF just makes statements? Because it is demonstrably false if you flip through say the last 50 pages of this thread.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.
antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total
Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
"were the rest just makes statements" - Slightly ironic. Do you have any proof that everyone but TheDWF just makes statements? Because it is demonstrably false if you flip through say the last 50 pages of this thread.
Whoa what?! way to go personal, I was just pointing something, saying that post that have proof that back them up are better tan blank statements I was not saying that TheDwf is always right or wrong or anything, I guess you can say that I was making a blanket statement myself but thats would just be for the sake of arguing, and I don't have any intention to enter in a personal fight with you because that would just be derailing the thread
Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.
antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total
Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.
Yeah that is what I was saying maybe it didn't came across as clear, I apologize for that but what I was saying is that the more data we get the better
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
I think we have a different impression then. What I see is that most people back up their arguments with the one or other statistic. Not everyone and the chosen statistics can be debated, but there is stuff that people base their arguments off.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
What I was trying to say in that Templar conversation has been misunderstood and I'm too tired/lazy to write X pages to explain it properly, so please just forget about it.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
What I was trying to say in that Templar conversation has been misunderstood and I'm too tired/lazy to write X pages to explain it properly, so please just forget about it.
Templars are Daed! - No, see these 10 examples of Pro players using High Templar. BUT SOME OF THEY LOSET!!! - But you see, if they use them in games they can earn money, it must be somewhat viable? NO TERRAN OP NERF MINE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
On October 24 2014 00:11 SC2Toastie wrote: Mech isn't viable. - No, see these 10 examples of pro players using Mech. BUT SOME OF THEM LOSE - But you see, if they use them in games where they can earn money, it must be somewhat viable? NO IMMORTALS OP BUFF TANK WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ಠ_ಠ
To be quite fair, there are waaaay more protoss players that open templar than terran players that use mech.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.
antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total
Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.
This is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it.
I have *always* argued that we need to look at multiple data points - statistical, anecdotal and others. By compiling statistics between top players only - however you want to define them - I simply added another data point to the discussion. Never did I claim it was conclusive proof of anything.
But yeah, it is probably more fun to consciously mis-understand and mis-represent what other people say. Personal attacks are so much easier than intelligent, nuanced discussions.
The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.
They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.
Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings. I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.
In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.
This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.
Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.
They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.
Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.
On October 24 2014 01:12 frostalgia wrote: The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.
They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.
Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings. I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.
In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.
This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.
Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.
They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.
Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.
If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings. The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.
antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total
Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.
This is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it.
I have *always* argued that we need to look at multiple data points - statistical, anecdotal and others. By compiling statistics between top players only - however you want to define them - I simply added another data point to the discussion. Never did I claim it was conclusive proof of anything.
But yeah, it is probably more fun to consciously mis-understand and mis-represent what other people say. Personal attacks are so much easier than intelligent, nuanced discussions.
You did realize that I painted multiple people in the worse of light to show that it's possible why people disbelieve one piece of evidence over another right?
Playa is a GM who uses first hand field experience to orient his point of view on how the reality of the matchup is. TheDWF places emphasis on individual game analysis to better discuss specific unit interaction that gets glossed by pure statistical analysis.
Heck, I was one of the first posters saying how much I loved your analysis.
There is a grain of truth in all of them, and a level of bias in all of them. Because there is no holy grail that can act as our compass. We follow the arguments, and our opinions and conclusions from those arguments will change as time passes. The goal is to never stop discussing no matter how few answers it leads.
On October 24 2014 01:12 frostalgia wrote: The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.
They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.
Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings. I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.
In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.
This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.
Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.
They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.
Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.
If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings. The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.
Maybe just remove it and try it with the impaler ( or what ever the evolution of Hydra is called with long range single targed dmg? )
On October 24 2014 01:16 Big J wrote: If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings. The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.
Exactly the role Locusts should have, regardless of their intention when they were created. Now their role should be a replacement for Zerglings, ones that can respawn for free. The respawn should be their focus in midgame, and damage-sink in lategame.
They are still ranged units, so they'll still pair with zerglings or broodlins just fine.. They just won't be more powerful than zerglings or broodlings unless combined, and waiting for a respawn to deal double damage for 10-15 seconds still makes them potentially strong in late game, just not an annoying seige unit that is impossible to bypass, creating stagnant deadzones.
Nerfing locust strength and toughness in exchange for speed and life length is a wise way to make Swarm Host a more interesting unit in the right hands. At the highest level most zergs would be loving speedier free units, and making them weaker will only help stop stagnation in Swarm Host play.
I have an issue with your suggestion. There is a point of balance that needs to be achieved by a unit like that, and in my opinion it is really hard to hit.
Offensively, they are ok. This seems to be a unit that is motivated by counter-attacks and possibly surrounds. This is fine. Lower durability and strength means that fortified positions are better against them, while they still retain potency against unfortified expands and reinforcement lines.
In combat, they are more difficult. At what point do they become useless against splash and dps based compositions. I assume that their role in this situation is to act as cannon-fodder. But how do you balance them so that their resources are not wasted in periods where the units haven't spawned, and that they don't spawn so often that armies are getting swarmed for almost no effort? If you increase their lifetime, I assume respawn timer has to go up as well. This creates a challenge for the zerg player.
Of course, this is only considering the current arsenals of the two respective races, Blizzard might change units in ways that will alleviate these issues and create a niche for a unit like this.
On October 23 2014 21:28 TokO wrote: It's an innate trait of the Protoss race to be able to identify a point in which the opponent is weak and end the game with an attack that uses warpgate to take away or minimise defender's advantage. Just like it is an innate trait of Zerg to be more dynamic as their economies grows. You can't evaluate the match-up fairly by making an argument that ignores all the strategies and outcomes where Protoss has the advantage, and focus only on the set of strategies that benefit the Zerg.
I mean, try to make an argument using the greater sample, and people come out and say they only care about the pro-level. Try to make an argument using the sample from the pro-level, and people say you ignore the greater sample. It's a lose-lose situation.
There's always the vocal minority that's going to try to neglect whatever sample you come up with, sadly. The best way is the way TheDwf tries to do it - taking 10 recent games and describing then all. There's however always a bunch of trolls who don't get it and derail discussion...
The first and biggest problem with that is, that we have a biased understanding of what a mistake is. In a lot of games it works out nicely, in many others you just can't make a clear point on why someone won - there can be multiple reasons or no bigger plain mistakes from the loser to begin with.
And then it also disregards how hard it is to avoid mistakes. It is pretty easy to point out someone's mistakes. But if they happen regularily, we just have to agree that it is not really possible to get out enough vikings against 15min Broodlords if we add in all the other game possibilities like ultralisks and how you also need a lot of tanks vs infestors. And that it really isn't just an individual mistake.
I don't like TheDwf's approach, because I don't think he's demonstrating that his analysis is relevant to this thread. The build order choice in and the outcome of any game is dependent on many factors: player skill, mindgames and player expectatings, serendipity, mistakes as well as build order choice and counters. Virtually every known build is useful/effective in at least one of the possible scenarios. Arguing that any single play style is intrinsically bad is not mathematically provable, although some builds are so obviously bad that it should be sufficient for this discussion. Nevertheless there are many respectable builds that can't be dismissed because the race would be clearly weaker without the option to play like that, even if the build is no longer the standard build.
So if you're TheDwf it seems like any time someone says "templar openings are dead" that you can point to your catalogue of games that show the builds being used by a pro player. And the actual outcome of the games can be irrelevant because the actual outcome of any game is based on so many hidden factors that anything you actually say about the game is unfalsifiable so it's easy to handwave the outcome away by pointing out mistakes and such.
But I don't think that this is the proper response to the quoted statement because the thought behind them is simply to say that templar openings feel weaker and less viable, which many protoss players have felt. I don't think it's supposed to be a statement which you can take at face value and then disprove, but that's what the discussion starts to revolve around. I think since this is just a forum and not a formal setting like a court we could be a bit more forgiving of people that use imprecise language.
TheDwf however always has proof to back up his statements, you can agree or disagree with him, but at the end he always has VODs/Statistics/etc. were the rest just makes statements, in a scientific enviroment having proof to back up your statements makes your statements more valid than simply making statements and expect that it has any value just because you are saying, so even if what he says is complete bullshit it will still be more valid for the simply fact that he has proof to back it up.
Most of the posters have proof, its just about agreeing on which proof is valid.
antiRW has proof, if you're okay with removing candidates from your sample that disagree with your conclusions Playa has proof, if you're okay with anecdotal evidence as objective evidence proving your theories theDWF has proof, if you enjoy ignoring statistical trends whether sampled or total
Realistically the best coarse of action is have dozens of these types of people with their anti-thetical "proofs" and biases and having us accept that each of them contain enough grains of truth to create a dialogue.
This is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it.
I have *always* argued that we need to look at multiple data points - statistical, anecdotal and others. By compiling statistics between top players only - however you want to define them - I simply added another data point to the discussion. Never did I claim it was conclusive proof of anything.
But yeah, it is probably more fun to consciously mis-understand and mis-represent what other people say. Personal attacks are so much easier than intelligent, nuanced discussions.
You did realize that I painted multiple people in the worse of light to show that it's possible why people disbelieve one piece of evidence over another right?
Playa is a GM who uses first hand field experience to orient his point of view on how the reality of the matchup is. TheDWF places emphasis on individual game analysis to better discuss specific unit interaction that gets glossed by pure statistical analysis.
Heck, I was one of the first posters saying how much I loved your analysis.
There is a grain of truth in all of them, and a level of bias in all of them. Because there is no holy grail that can act as our compass. We follow the arguments, and our opinions and conclusions from those arguments will change as time passes. The goal is to never stop discussing no matter how few answers it leads.
Ah, so the *if you* was actually directed at the other poster, not at me. Apologies!
On October 24 2014 01:12 frostalgia wrote: The only change I'd love to see happen before LotV is to Swarm Hosts.
They can be made into a more fun unit if tweaked correctly. This might have to wait until Legacy of the Void, but I believe it's an urgent change that should be implemented at least on a Balance Map after this year.
Locusts need to be much weaker, and do far less damage. You should be able to kill them with workers, and they should need to 2-shot workers as well. They should be weaker than zerglings and broodlings. I suggest to cut their damage and health in half.
In exchange, they should move quicker (about twice as fast), live for 30 seconds (45 seconds with Enduring upgrade, which should require Hive), and spawn every 30 seconds. Then you can poke around more often, or overlap spawns to crate a swarm that can deal double damage for ten seconds.
This creates interesting strategic opportunities in all zerg matchups, by deciding where to spawn locusts from and moving them around more often since they're faster. Swarm Hosts would be more focused on things like map control, scouting, harassing worker lines, or overlapping spawns to do damage for a few seconds. However, they wouldn't be great damage dealers with each spawn like they are now during a siege.
Think about how this can actually be a buff for Zerg in situations where they can prove useful. Zerg wouldn't lose as many lings to scout, it provides more micro for Swarm Hosts for better players to show skill with them, and doesn't make you a troll anymore.
They would most likely be used in smaller numbers to poke around at first, but would make a good support unit to scout ahead, or locusts can still make a nice damage-sink for other units instead of lings once the Enduring Locusts upgrade is researched and spawns can be overlapped.
Wouldn't it be more fun to try to overlap spawns in late game, and micro speedier locusts around in mid game as scouts and worker harass? Giving Swarm Host a reduced midgame role and a more interesting micro-based late game role would be beneficial for all races and matchups.
If I want a fast harass unit that walks by ground and is cheap I actually just build zerglings. The idea with Swarm Hosts was to give zerg a much needed midgame longrange unit. Something that lets you attack if you claim mapcontrol. The free unit concept failed in that regard and thus I think it should just be removed and replaced with something that fits the intention.
Should replace the free units with spikes that travel from underground, dealing damage to units in a line. Just sayin
EPT
!
