|
|
|
On November 06 2014 01:46 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:27 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 09:10 TheDwf wrote:On November 05 2014 08:42 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 06:05 TheDwf wrote:Lol. Meanwhile posting stats of MMA's TvZ winrate since the patch, beating top world Zergs like Reynor or aGaham, is evidence that Terran dominates Zerg. Jesus, the double standards... I literally give you the exact, entire data of what you call "real measure to look at balance," and of course the whole list is irrelevant because one KT rookie slipped in; naturally that (predictable) reaction has nothing to do with the fact the results don't match your expectations.  And I'm the one heavily biased, right? Also lol @ calling "average players" people who could actually be in Code A, and some even in Code S. Please stop despising players because you have limited knowledge of the Korean scene. Actually you are. You've been known around TL long enough to know you aren't one to admit that T has a problem, even it really does. I can understand your stance ("dont nerf my race bro") but honestly, would you rather win fair and square or would you like a win against an opponent who started the game with 2 workers? Because against T, the other races are in that state. Cute. Unfortunately all I have to do is link this post and any credibility you might painfully try to rebuild for the next few years instantly shatters. Rebuild? Unfortunate? Thanks for trying but no. That post is still my opinion, and I would post it again and again, minus the storm part (which I admitted in earlier posts that was too much of a stretch). The changes are substantial but necessary, given the extreme imbalanced state that Terran is in at the moment. It's you who've lost all credibility by passionately denying Terran is overpowered at this state of game over and over in every single posts you made throughout the years. It's honestly a joke, Terran can start with 3 Command Centers and you'll somehow try to justify it's balanced, with the way you have been posting. Why am I not surprised at the people who quoted your post via dismissing my changes with extreme reactions are all Terran icons? You guys are like rats You've already lost all credibility on TL. Let's dig up some of your posts shall we? Guy complains about WM in PvT forcing P to get early detection, then you ultimately try to play it off by "Stargate is viable.": + Show Spoiler +Cherry-picking stats as usual "based on the TvZ games I saw this month" + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1122#22423 Adovocates Templar openings were abandoned because other builds were viable. Then gets called out for terrible argument + cherry-picking the data as usual. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461434-balance-test-map-soon-july-8th?page=23#454 Let's not forget your own changes to an already strong Terran: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460770-terran-buffs-balance-testing-soon-july-1?page=34#675 What a joke. You should not be able to post anything Starcraft-related. You always advocate for Terran, even when they during the times when they are broken, and then try to backup your data by cherry-picking. It's almost getting worse than Avilo's infamous T bias. While I agree that TheDwf has an incredible Terran bias, people listen to him more than you because his suggestions are not as extreme and he rationalizes them much better than you do. The post you linked to where he suggested some changes for example - I don't think there is merit to any of these changes, but he at least takes the time to show you his reasoning. Meanwhile, your changes seem like you thought of them right after losing a TvP on ladder and immediately posted them to TL without considering the impact they might have (requiring research to lift Terran buildings.. seriously?). Nobody is going to take you seriously until you calm down a little and try to talk in a way that is less hyperbolic. In the end we all have biases towards the race(s) we play but this forum is not a place to discuss biases. It's a place to propose ideas and talk about them using reasoned arguments that hold up despite our own personal biases.
While I agree that everyone has some level of bias, if it's to the point where they bring in false data and refute anything that is directed towards their race, it's not okay. A forum is meant to be a discussion area, not a propaganda battleground. People also listen to him because he's been on this thread for more than 700 pages and most people just don't have the time in their lives to post continuously for that long just to reply to him. His reasoning is circular; he says things, backs it up with false data, then rely on the data to produce more one-sided comments. The fact that he's also GM-level makes people listen to him, but we even see pro players advocate balance every so often in a non-neutral manner.
EDIT: Plus, I don't mind what image I'm perceived on, because I'm not here to compare the acknowledgment I get with the acknowledgment that TheDwf gets. Even combat-ex would get more credibility than me, I'm a nobody in the field of SC2. My point is that his comments are not very honest and I'm glad that you recognized that within your first sentence.
|
On November 06 2014 01:56 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:46 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 09:10 TheDwf wrote:On November 05 2014 08:42 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 06:05 TheDwf wrote:Lol. Meanwhile posting stats of MMA's TvZ winrate since the patch, beating top world Zergs like Reynor or aGaham, is evidence that Terran dominates Zerg. Jesus, the double standards... I literally give you the exact, entire data of what you call "real measure to look at balance," and of course the whole list is irrelevant because one KT rookie slipped in; naturally that (predictable) reaction has nothing to do with the fact the results don't match your expectations. And I'm the one heavily biased, right? Also lol @ calling "average players" people who could actually be in Code A, and some even in Code S. Please stop despising players because you have limited knowledge of the Korean scene. Actually you are. You've been known around TL long enough to know you aren't one to admit that T has a problem, even it really does. I can understand your stance ("dont nerf my race bro") but honestly, would you rather win fair and square or would you like a win against an opponent who started the game with 2 workers? Because against T, the other races are in that state. Cute. Unfortunately all I have to do is link this post and any credibility you might painfully try to rebuild for the next few years instantly shatters. Rebuild? Unfortunate? Thanks for trying but no. That post is still my opinion, and I would post it again and again, minus the storm part (which I admitted in earlier posts that was too much of a stretch). The changes are substantial but necessary, given the extreme imbalanced state that Terran is in at the moment. It's you who've lost all credibility by passionately denying Terran is overpowered at this state of game over and over in every single posts you made throughout the years. It's honestly a joke, Terran can start with 3 Command Centers and you'll somehow try to justify it's balanced, with the way you have been posting. Why am I not surprised at the people who quoted your post via dismissing my changes with extreme reactions are all Terran icons? You guys are like rats You've already lost all credibility on TL. Let's dig up some of your posts shall we? Guy complains about WM in PvT forcing P to get early detection, then you ultimately try to play it off by "Stargate is viable.": + Show Spoiler +Cherry-picking stats as usual "based on the TvZ games I saw this month" + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1122#22423 Adovocates Templar openings were abandoned because other builds were viable. Then gets called out for terrible argument + cherry-picking the data as usual. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461434-balance-test-map-soon-july-8th?page=23#454 Let's not forget your own changes to an already strong Terran: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460770-terran-buffs-balance-testing-soon-july-1?page=34#675 What a joke. You should not be able to post anything Starcraft-related. You always advocate for Terran, even when they during the times when they are broken, and then try to backup your data by cherry-picking. It's almost getting worse than Avilo's infamous T bias. While I agree that TheDwf has an incredible Terran bias, people listen to him more than you because his suggestions are not as extreme and he rationalizes them much better than you do. The post you linked to where he suggested some changes for example - I don't think there is merit to any of these changes, but he at least takes the time to show you his reasoning. Meanwhile, your changes seem like you thought of them right after losing a TvP on ladder and immediately posted them to TL without considering the impact they might have (requiring research to lift Terran buildings.. seriously?). Nobody is going to take you seriously until you calm down a little and try to talk in a way that is less hyperbolic. In the end we all have biases towards the race(s) we play but this forum is not a place to discuss biases. It's a place to propose ideas and talk about them using reasoned arguments that hold up despite our own personal biases. While I agree that everyone has some level of bias, if it's to the point where they bring in false data and refute anything that is directed towards their race, it's not okay. A forum is meant to be a discussion area, not a propaganda battleground. People also listen to him because he's been on this thread for more than 700 pages and most people just don't have the time in their lives to post continuously for that long just to reply to him. His reasoning is circular; he says things, backs it up with false data, then rely on the data to produce more one-sided comments. The fact that he's also GM-level makes people listen to him, but we even see pro players advocate balance every so often in a non-neutral manner.
His data is not false though. TheDwf is actually very good about sourcing data and providing evidence. Rather, his bias leads him to select certain data that emphasize his argument. But we all do that. Refer to our discussion about TvZ a few pages back and you'll see that I also provided a 100% factual data set that he dismissed as being biased because of what I chose to include and exclude.
You can't just call someone biased and accuse them of posting false data because you don't agree with them. Instead what you can do is give logical arguments as to why the data he presented is not relevant or doesn't accurately represent the situation.
Also, someone who is GM inherently knows more about the game because they must know more to reach that level. But if you give well reasoned arguments and provide data to back it up people will listen to you. I'm only a high Diamond player who snuck into Masters for 1 season, but when I post stuff that is well thought out and articulated clearly sometimes people agree with me.
|
On November 06 2014 02:02 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 01:56 parkufarku wrote:On November 06 2014 01:46 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 09:10 TheDwf wrote:On November 05 2014 08:42 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 06:05 TheDwf wrote:Lol. Meanwhile posting stats of MMA's TvZ winrate since the patch, beating top world Zergs like Reynor or aGaham, is evidence that Terran dominates Zerg. Jesus, the double standards... I literally give you the exact, entire data of what you call "real measure to look at balance," and of course the whole list is irrelevant because one KT rookie slipped in; naturally that (predictable) reaction has nothing to do with the fact the results don't match your expectations. And I'm the one heavily biased, right? Also lol @ calling "average players" people who could actually be in Code A, and some even in Code S. Please stop despising players because you have limited knowledge of the Korean scene. Actually you are. You've been known around TL long enough to know you aren't one to admit that T has a problem, even it really does. I can understand your stance ("dont nerf my race bro") but honestly, would you rather win fair and square or would you like a win against an opponent who started the game with 2 workers? Because against T, the other races are in that state. Cute. Unfortunately all I have to do is link this post and any credibility you might painfully try to rebuild for the next few years instantly shatters. Rebuild? Unfortunate? Thanks for trying but no. That post is still my opinion, and I would post it again and again, minus the storm part (which I admitted in earlier posts that was too much of a stretch). The changes are substantial but necessary, given the extreme imbalanced state that Terran is in at the moment. It's you who've lost all credibility by passionately denying Terran is overpowered at this state of game over and over in every single posts you made throughout the years. It's honestly a joke, Terran can start with 3 Command Centers and you'll somehow try to justify it's balanced, with the way you have been posting. Why am I not surprised at the people who quoted your post via dismissing my changes with extreme reactions are all Terran icons? You guys are like rats You've already lost all credibility on TL. Let's dig up some of your posts shall we? Guy complains about WM in PvT forcing P to get early detection, then you ultimately try to play it off by "Stargate is viable.": + Show Spoiler +Cherry-picking stats as usual "based on the TvZ games I saw this month" + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1122#22423 Adovocates Templar openings were abandoned because other builds were viable. Then gets called out for terrible argument + cherry-picking the data as usual. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461434-balance-test-map-soon-july-8th?page=23#454 Let's not forget your own changes to an already strong Terran: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460770-terran-buffs-balance-testing-soon-july-1?page=34#675 What a joke. You should not be able to post anything Starcraft-related. You always advocate for Terran, even when they during the times when they are broken, and then try to backup your data by cherry-picking. It's almost getting worse than Avilo's infamous T bias. While I agree that TheDwf has an incredible Terran bias, people listen to him more than you because his suggestions are not as extreme and he rationalizes them much better than you do. The post you linked to where he suggested some changes for example - I don't think there is merit to any of these changes, but he at least takes the time to show you his reasoning. Meanwhile, your changes seem like you thought of them right after losing a TvP on ladder and immediately posted them to TL without considering the impact they might have (requiring research to lift Terran buildings.. seriously?). Nobody is going to take you seriously until you calm down a little and try to talk in a way that is less hyperbolic. In the end we all have biases towards the race(s) we play but this forum is not a place to discuss biases. It's a place to propose ideas and talk about them using reasoned arguments that hold up despite our own personal biases. While I agree that everyone has some level of bias, if it's to the point where they bring in false data and refute anything that is directed towards their race, it's not okay. A forum is meant to be a discussion area, not a propaganda battleground. People also listen to him because he's been on this thread for more than 700 pages and most people just don't have the time in their lives to post continuously for that long just to reply to him. His reasoning is circular; he says things, backs it up with false data, then rely on the data to produce more one-sided comments. The fact that he's also GM-level makes people listen to him, but we even see pro players advocate balance every so often in a non-neutral manner. His data is not false though. TheDwf is actually very good about sourcing data and providing evidence. Rather, his bias leads him to select certain data that emphasize his argument.
That is the very definition of cherry-picking data. I'm not saying the matches he quotes are imaginary. I'm saying that his data as a whole is false because he emphasizes matches that supports his argument while completely leaving out other relevant controls. Anyone can manipulate data to backup their argument. And there were posters before me, on this very same thread, that called him out for it.
|
On November 06 2014 02:10 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 02:02 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:56 parkufarku wrote:On November 06 2014 01:46 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 09:10 TheDwf wrote:On November 05 2014 08:42 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 06:05 TheDwf wrote:Lol. Meanwhile posting stats of MMA's TvZ winrate since the patch, beating top world Zergs like Reynor or aGaham, is evidence that Terran dominates Zerg. Jesus, the double standards... I literally give you the exact, entire data of what you call "real measure to look at balance," and of course the whole list is irrelevant because one KT rookie slipped in; naturally that (predictable) reaction has nothing to do with the fact the results don't match your expectations. And I'm the one heavily biased, right? Also lol @ calling "average players" people who could actually be in Code A, and some even in Code S. Please stop despising players because you have limited knowledge of the Korean scene. Actually you are. You've been known around TL long enough to know you aren't one to admit that T has a problem, even it really does. I can understand your stance ("dont nerf my race bro") but honestly, would you rather win fair and square or would you like a win against an opponent who started the game with 2 workers? Because against T, the other races are in that state. Cute. Unfortunately all I have to do is link this post and any credibility you might painfully try to rebuild for the next few years instantly shatters. Rebuild? Unfortunate? Thanks for trying but no. That post is still my opinion, and I would post it again and again, minus the storm part (which I admitted in earlier posts that was too much of a stretch). The changes are substantial but necessary, given the extreme imbalanced state that Terran is in at the moment. It's you who've lost all credibility by passionately denying Terran is overpowered at this state of game over and over in every single posts you made throughout the years. It's honestly a joke, Terran can start with 3 Command Centers and you'll somehow try to justify it's balanced, with the way you have been posting. Why am I not surprised at the people who quoted your post via dismissing my changes with extreme reactions are all Terran icons? You guys are like rats You've already lost all credibility on TL. Let's dig up some of your posts shall we? Guy complains about WM in PvT forcing P to get early detection, then you ultimately try to play it off by "Stargate is viable.": + Show Spoiler +Cherry-picking stats as usual "based on the TvZ games I saw this month" + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1122#22423 Adovocates Templar openings were abandoned because other builds were viable. Then gets called out for terrible argument + cherry-picking the data as usual. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461434-balance-test-map-soon-july-8th?page=23#454 Let's not forget your own changes to an already strong Terran: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460770-terran-buffs-balance-testing-soon-july-1?page=34#675 What a joke. You should not be able to post anything Starcraft-related. You always advocate for Terran, even when they during the times when they are broken, and then try to backup your data by cherry-picking. It's almost getting worse than Avilo's infamous T bias. While I agree that TheDwf has an incredible Terran bias, people listen to him more than you because his suggestions are not as extreme and he rationalizes them much better than you do. The post you linked to where he suggested some changes for example - I don't think there is merit to any of these changes, but he at least takes the time to show you his reasoning. Meanwhile, your changes seem like you thought of them right after losing a TvP on ladder and immediately posted them to TL without considering the impact they might have (requiring research to lift Terran buildings.. seriously?). Nobody is going to take you seriously until you calm down a little and try to talk in a way that is less hyperbolic. In the end we all have biases towards the race(s) we play but this forum is not a place to discuss biases. It's a place to propose ideas and talk about them using reasoned arguments that hold up despite our own personal biases. While I agree that everyone has some level of bias, if it's to the point where they bring in false data and refute anything that is directed towards their race, it's not okay. A forum is meant to be a discussion area, not a propaganda battleground. People also listen to him because he's been on this thread for more than 700 pages and most people just don't have the time in their lives to post continuously for that long just to reply to him. His reasoning is circular; he says things, backs it up with false data, then rely on the data to produce more one-sided comments. The fact that he's also GM-level makes people listen to him, but we even see pro players advocate balance every so often in a non-neutral manner. His data is not false though. TheDwf is actually very good about sourcing data and providing evidence. Rather, his bias leads him to select certain data that emphasize his argument. That is the very definition of cherry-picking data. I'm not saying the matches he quotes are imaginary. I'm saying that his data as a whole is false because he emphasizes matches that supports his argument while completely leaving out other relevant controls. Anyone can manipulate data to backup their argument. And there were posters before me, on this very same thread, that called him out for it.
But what is relevant and what is irrelevant is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
TheDwf picks certain data sets because he thinks they are relevant to the discussion. Proper discussion is about presenting to him reasons why you think he is wrong and a counter data set that you think more accurately represents the truth.
In my case, for example, I argued that his TvZ results weren't representative of balance at the top level because he included players that I deemed not to be top players (such as Keen, Armani, Golden, etc.).
But you simply say "OMG YOU SO BIASED YOUR DATA IS ALL FALSE OMG OMG" and that has very little weight in a discussion forum.
|
On November 06 2014 02:10 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 02:02 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:56 parkufarku wrote:On November 06 2014 01:46 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 09:10 TheDwf wrote:On November 05 2014 08:42 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 06:05 TheDwf wrote:Lol. Meanwhile posting stats of MMA's TvZ winrate since the patch, beating top world Zergs like Reynor or aGaham, is evidence that Terran dominates Zerg. Jesus, the double standards... I literally give you the exact, entire data of what you call "real measure to look at balance," and of course the whole list is irrelevant because one KT rookie slipped in; naturally that (predictable) reaction has nothing to do with the fact the results don't match your expectations. And I'm the one heavily biased, right? Also lol @ calling "average players" people who could actually be in Code A, and some even in Code S. Please stop despising players because you have limited knowledge of the Korean scene. Actually you are. You've been known around TL long enough to know you aren't one to admit that T has a problem, even it really does. I can understand your stance ("dont nerf my race bro") but honestly, would you rather win fair and square or would you like a win against an opponent who started the game with 2 workers? Because against T, the other races are in that state. Cute. Unfortunately all I have to do is link this post and any credibility you might painfully try to rebuild for the next few years instantly shatters. Rebuild? Unfortunate? Thanks for trying but no. That post is still my opinion, and I would post it again and again, minus the storm part (which I admitted in earlier posts that was too much of a stretch). The changes are substantial but necessary, given the extreme imbalanced state that Terran is in at the moment. It's you who've lost all credibility by passionately denying Terran is overpowered at this state of game over and over in every single posts you made throughout the years. It's honestly a joke, Terran can start with 3 Command Centers and you'll somehow try to justify it's balanced, with the way you have been posting. Why am I not surprised at the people who quoted your post via dismissing my changes with extreme reactions are all Terran icons? You guys are like rats You've already lost all credibility on TL. Let's dig up some of your posts shall we? Guy complains about WM in PvT forcing P to get early detection, then you ultimately try to play it off by "Stargate is viable.": + Show Spoiler +Cherry-picking stats as usual "based on the TvZ games I saw this month" + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1122#22423 Adovocates Templar openings were abandoned because other builds were viable. Then gets called out for terrible argument + cherry-picking the data as usual. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461434-balance-test-map-soon-july-8th?page=23#454 Let's not forget your own changes to an already strong Terran: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460770-terran-buffs-balance-testing-soon-july-1?page=34#675 What a joke. You should not be able to post anything Starcraft-related. You always advocate for Terran, even when they during the times when they are broken, and then try to backup your data by cherry-picking. It's almost getting worse than Avilo's infamous T bias. While I agree that TheDwf has an incredible Terran bias, people listen to him more than you because his suggestions are not as extreme and he rationalizes them much better than you do. The post you linked to where he suggested some changes for example - I don't think there is merit to any of these changes, but he at least takes the time to show you his reasoning. Meanwhile, your changes seem like you thought of them right after losing a TvP on ladder and immediately posted them to TL without considering the impact they might have (requiring research to lift Terran buildings.. seriously?). Nobody is going to take you seriously until you calm down a little and try to talk in a way that is less hyperbolic. In the end we all have biases towards the race(s) we play but this forum is not a place to discuss biases. It's a place to propose ideas and talk about them using reasoned arguments that hold up despite our own personal biases. While I agree that everyone has some level of bias, if it's to the point where they bring in false data and refute anything that is directed towards their race, it's not okay. A forum is meant to be a discussion area, not a propaganda battleground. People also listen to him because he's been on this thread for more than 700 pages and most people just don't have the time in their lives to post continuously for that long just to reply to him. His reasoning is circular; he says things, backs it up with false data, then rely on the data to produce more one-sided comments. The fact that he's also GM-level makes people listen to him, but we even see pro players advocate balance every so often in a non-neutral manner. His data is not false though. TheDwf is actually very good about sourcing data and providing evidence. Rather, his bias leads him to select certain data that emphasize his argument. That is the very definition of cherry-picking data. I'm not saying the matches he quotes are imaginary. I'm saying that his data as a whole is false because he emphasizes matches that supports his argument while completely leaving out other relevant controls. Anyone can manipulate data to backup their argument. And there were posters before me, on this very same thread, that called him out for it.
Well, have you ever considered that some people may at least try to be somewhat objective. First looking at the data and making a statement, then supporting that statement if it gets questioned further by showcasing the data that made him/her take that opinion to begin with?
Given TheDwf's dedication to supporting his arguments and being very quick with showcasing the games behind them, it is very reasonable to assume he doesn't just cherrypick games in retrospect.
|
On November 06 2014 02:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 02:10 parkufarku wrote:On November 06 2014 02:02 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:56 parkufarku wrote:On November 06 2014 01:46 DinoMight wrote:On November 06 2014 01:27 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 09:10 TheDwf wrote:On November 05 2014 08:42 parkufarku wrote:On November 05 2014 06:05 TheDwf wrote:Lol. Meanwhile posting stats of MMA's TvZ winrate since the patch, beating top world Zergs like Reynor or aGaham, is evidence that Terran dominates Zerg. Jesus, the double standards... I literally give you the exact, entire data of what you call "real measure to look at balance," and of course the whole list is irrelevant because one KT rookie slipped in; naturally that (predictable) reaction has nothing to do with the fact the results don't match your expectations. And I'm the one heavily biased, right? Also lol @ calling "average players" people who could actually be in Code A, and some even in Code S. Please stop despising players because you have limited knowledge of the Korean scene. Actually you are. You've been known around TL long enough to know you aren't one to admit that T has a problem, even it really does. I can understand your stance ("dont nerf my race bro") but honestly, would you rather win fair and square or would you like a win against an opponent who started the game with 2 workers? Because against T, the other races are in that state. Cute. Unfortunately all I have to do is link this post and any credibility you might painfully try to rebuild for the next few years instantly shatters. Rebuild? Unfortunate? Thanks for trying but no. That post is still my opinion, and I would post it again and again, minus the storm part (which I admitted in earlier posts that was too much of a stretch). The changes are substantial but necessary, given the extreme imbalanced state that Terran is in at the moment. It's you who've lost all credibility by passionately denying Terran is overpowered at this state of game over and over in every single posts you made throughout the years. It's honestly a joke, Terran can start with 3 Command Centers and you'll somehow try to justify it's balanced, with the way you have been posting. Why am I not surprised at the people who quoted your post via dismissing my changes with extreme reactions are all Terran icons? You guys are like rats You've already lost all credibility on TL. Let's dig up some of your posts shall we? Guy complains about WM in PvT forcing P to get early detection, then you ultimately try to play it off by "Stargate is viable.": + Show Spoiler +Cherry-picking stats as usual "based on the TvZ games I saw this month" + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/255254-designated-balance-discussion-thread?page=1122#22423 Adovocates Templar openings were abandoned because other builds were viable. Then gets called out for terrible argument + cherry-picking the data as usual. + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/461434-balance-test-map-soon-july-8th?page=23#454 Let's not forget your own changes to an already strong Terran: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/460770-terran-buffs-balance-testing-soon-july-1?page=34#675 What a joke. You should not be able to post anything Starcraft-related. You always advocate for Terran, even when they during the times when they are broken, and then try to backup your data by cherry-picking. It's almost getting worse than Avilo's infamous T bias. While I agree that TheDwf has an incredible Terran bias, people listen to him more than you because his suggestions are not as extreme and he rationalizes them much better than you do. The post you linked to where he suggested some changes for example - I don't think there is merit to any of these changes, but he at least takes the time to show you his reasoning. Meanwhile, your changes seem like you thought of them right after losing a TvP on ladder and immediately posted them to TL without considering the impact they might have (requiring research to lift Terran buildings.. seriously?). Nobody is going to take you seriously until you calm down a little and try to talk in a way that is less hyperbolic. In the end we all have biases towards the race(s) we play but this forum is not a place to discuss biases. It's a place to propose ideas and talk about them using reasoned arguments that hold up despite our own personal biases. While I agree that everyone has some level of bias, if it's to the point where they bring in false data and refute anything that is directed towards their race, it's not okay. A forum is meant to be a discussion area, not a propaganda battleground. People also listen to him because he's been on this thread for more than 700 pages and most people just don't have the time in their lives to post continuously for that long just to reply to him. His reasoning is circular; he says things, backs it up with false data, then rely on the data to produce more one-sided comments. The fact that he's also GM-level makes people listen to him, but we even see pro players advocate balance every so often in a non-neutral manner. His data is not false though. TheDwf is actually very good about sourcing data and providing evidence. Rather, his bias leads him to select certain data that emphasize his argument. That is the very definition of cherry-picking data. I'm not saying the matches he quotes are imaginary. I'm saying that his data as a whole is false because he emphasizes matches that supports his argument while completely leaving out other relevant controls. Anyone can manipulate data to backup their argument. And there were posters before me, on this very same thread, that called him out for it. Well, have you ever considered that some people may at least try to be somewhat objective. First looking at the data and making a statement, then supporting that statement if it gets questioned further by showcasing the data that made him/her take that opinion to begin with? Given TheDwf's dedication to supporting his arguments and being very quick with showcasing the games behind them, it is very reasonable to assume he doesn't just cherrypick games in retrospect.
Well, everyone does it to a certain extent. I would say "cherry picking" is extreme, but everyone has at least a slight bias in how they select data or what they think is relevant.
But can we talk about balance and not bias??
TERRAN IMBA!
Please feel free to continue the discussion now
|
What's about decrease fungal growth cost from 75 to 50 ? Could allow infestator to use more FG (44s faster : fungal each 88s instead of 133s), and be a unit more cost effective. Just think 2FG for 100 energy would be dodgeable and make 60 dmg in 8s, while a storm make 80dmg in 4s for 75 energy.
Aslo Terran have easier acess to ghost, and have often a lot of gaz in their bank.
|
On November 07 2014 04:46 Tyrhanius wrote:
What's about decrease fungal growth cost from 75 to 50 ? Could allow infestator to use more FG (44s faster : fungal each 88s instead of 133s), and be a unit more cost effective. Just think 2FG for 100 energy would be dodgeable and make 60 dmg in 8s, while a storm make 80dmg in 4s for 75 energy.
Aslo Terran have easier acess to ghost, and have often a lot of gaz in their bank.
way too strong. Fungal holding down is really strong with banelings and ultras.
I think the problem with infestors is that later on they are plenty fine.
Just in the midgame they are really bad. They are a bit like HTs currently. You cannot really open them, but once you are somewhat safe, they are pretty nice.
|
On November 07 2014 04:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 04:46 Tyrhanius wrote:
What's about decrease fungal growth cost from 75 to 50 ? Could allow infestator to use more FG (44s faster : fungal each 88s instead of 133s), and be a unit more cost effective. Just think 2FG for 100 energy would be dodgeable and make 60 dmg in 8s, while a storm make 80dmg in 4s for 75 energy.
Aslo Terran have easier acess to ghost, and have often a lot of gaz in their bank. way too strong. Fungal holding down is really strong with banelings and ultras. I think the problem with infestors is that later on they are plenty fine. Just in the midgame they are really bad. They are a bit like HTs currently. You cannot really open them, but once you are somewhat safe, they are pretty nice.
Solution seems pretty straight-forward then, lose Infested terran and Neural Parasite and pick up two spells that aren't complete ass.
|
On November 07 2014 05:16 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 04:53 Big J wrote:On November 07 2014 04:46 Tyrhanius wrote:
What's about decrease fungal growth cost from 75 to 50 ? Could allow infestator to use more FG (44s faster : fungal each 88s instead of 133s), and be a unit more cost effective. Just think 2FG for 100 energy would be dodgeable and make 60 dmg in 8s, while a storm make 80dmg in 4s for 75 energy.
Aslo Terran have easier acess to ghost, and have often a lot of gaz in their bank. way too strong. Fungal holding down is really strong with banelings and ultras. I think the problem with infestors is that later on they are plenty fine. Just in the midgame they are really bad. They are a bit like HTs currently. You cannot really open them, but once you are somewhat safe, they are pretty nice. Solution seems pretty straight-forward then, lose Infested terran and Neural Parasite and pick up two spells that aren't complete ass.
Well, if you want to buff the infestor why not just return ITs to what they were so that they are not completely ass past 1-1 is researched for the opponent, i.e. past the time before the infestor is even out? Which also removes the completely unintuitive idea that the infested Terran is the only unit in the game not profiting from upgrades.
|
On November 07 2014 05:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 05:16 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 07 2014 04:53 Big J wrote:On November 07 2014 04:46 Tyrhanius wrote:
What's about decrease fungal growth cost from 75 to 50 ? Could allow infestator to use more FG (44s faster : fungal each 88s instead of 133s), and be a unit more cost effective. Just think 2FG for 100 energy would be dodgeable and make 60 dmg in 8s, while a storm make 80dmg in 4s for 75 energy.
Aslo Terran have easier acess to ghost, and have often a lot of gaz in their bank. way too strong. Fungal holding down is really strong with banelings and ultras. I think the problem with infestors is that later on they are plenty fine. Just in the midgame they are really bad. They are a bit like HTs currently. You cannot really open them, but once you are somewhat safe, they are pretty nice. Solution seems pretty straight-forward then, lose Infested terran and Neural Parasite and pick up two spells that aren't complete ass. Well, if you want to buff the infestor why not just return ITs to what they were so that they are not completely ass past 1-1 is researched for the opponent, i.e. past the time before the infestor is even out? Which also removes the completely unintuitive idea that the infested Terran is the only unit in the game not profiting from upgrades.
I agree that neural parasite is pretty ass. Maybe they can increase the range a bit so it's more useful. Currently anything you'd WANT to neural is within range of killing the infestor so for example you Neural 1 Colossus and the other Colossus kills your infestor 2 seconds later....and unlike in Wings, there is no "money spell" vortex that you can use. All your spellcaster targets are really small and die too fast once neuraled.
Infested Terrans were WAYYYY too strong in WoL where you'd spam them and they'd kill everything (essentially for free since it's just energy). I still think there is room to use the current Infested Terrans for harass.
Maybe if people actually had an incentive to make Infestors in the first place (fungal and nerual weren't so bad) then ITs could just be an extra harass feature and don't need a buff.
|
Can't we just get rid of spells like Neural Parasite and Abduct? They're too powerful vs massive units and they end up so weak (i.e. costly) you'd never use them vs smaller units. I don't like Abduct since I'm taking a physics course these days and it's too much cognitive dissonance, but couldn't NP be saved by rebalancing it to not work vs massive?
|
On November 07 2014 05:38 Grumbels wrote:
Can't we just get rid of spells like Neural Parasite and Abduct? They're too powerful vs massive units and they end up so weak (i.e. costly) you'd never use them vs smaller units.
This so much. Horribly uninspired "I kill/steal your big units" spells.
|
On November 07 2014 05:38 Grumbels wrote:
Can't we just get rid of spells like Neural Parasite and Abduct? They're too powerful vs massive units and they end up so weak (i.e. costly) you'd never use them vs smaller units. I don't like Abduct since I'm taking a physics course these days and it's too much cognitive dissonance, but couldn't NP be saved by rebalancing it to not work vs massive?
it s a scifigame most of it doesnt make sence XD i do phys too but i still like the viper 
that and you kinda need it to make roach/hdyra viable in zvp :L its easily dealt with by just getting HT
also neural parasite is actually garbage atm, anything youd want to neural can simply kill the infestors anyways ( such as collosus etc) and an infesotrs comparble in cost to somethin like an immortal
|
On November 07 2014 05:43 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 05:38 Grumbels wrote:
Can't we just get rid of spells like Neural Parasite and Abduct? They're too powerful vs massive units and they end up so weak (i.e. costly) you'd never use them vs smaller units. This so much. Horribly uninspired "I kill/steal your big units" spells.
How is that worse than splash spells and attacks: "I kill many of your small units" that then are pretty useless against bigger targets? (aka the current tank vs most things Protoss, how bad storms are against ultralisks)
I don't like NP, it's stupid, if it can be denied it is worthless, if it can't it is broken as hell.
But I think abduct is very, very nice to have. It gives you options when your army would actually be crap and it hurts the opponent without being just a "all your shit is done for" spell ala storm. Also the range/casting delay on it is very well done, so that you can nearly always grab something, but the opponent can nearly always punish you for trying.
If we compare an abduct on a Colossus with a NP the difference is pretty sick:
the one moves it into your units, but you still have to use 500damage to kill the unit.
the other one doesn't just kill it, it removes damage from the opponent that is attacking the colossus and you get a damage boost in the form of a full colossus.
On November 07 2014 05:35 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 05:21 Big J wrote:On November 07 2014 05:16 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 07 2014 04:53 Big J wrote:On November 07 2014 04:46 Tyrhanius wrote:
What's about decrease fungal growth cost from 75 to 50 ? Could allow infestator to use more FG (44s faster : fungal each 88s instead of 133s), and be a unit more cost effective. Just think 2FG for 100 energy would be dodgeable and make 60 dmg in 8s, while a storm make 80dmg in 4s for 75 energy.
Aslo Terran have easier acess to ghost, and have often a lot of gaz in their bank. way too strong. Fungal holding down is really strong with banelings and ultras. I think the problem with infestors is that later on they are plenty fine. Just in the midgame they are really bad. They are a bit like HTs currently. You cannot really open them, but once you are somewhat safe, they are pretty nice. Solution seems pretty straight-forward then, lose Infested terran and Neural Parasite and pick up two spells that aren't complete ass. Well, if you want to buff the infestor why not just return ITs to what they were so that they are not completely ass past 1-1 is researched for the opponent, i.e. past the time before the infestor is even out? Which also removes the completely unintuitive idea that the infested Terran is the only unit in the game not profiting from upgrades. I agree that neural parasite is pretty ass. Maybe they can increase the range a bit so it's more useful. Currently anything you'd WANT to neural is within range of killing the infestor so for example you Neural 1 Colossus and the other Colossus kills your infestor 2 seconds later....and unlike in Wings, there is no "money spell" vortex that you can use. All your spellcaster targets are really small and die too fast once neuraled. Infested Terrans were WAYYYY too strong in WoL where you'd spam them and they'd kill everything (essentially for free since it's just energy). I still think there is room to use the current Infested Terrans for harass. Maybe if people actually had an incentive to make Infestors in the first place (fungal and nerual weren't so bad) then ITs could just be an extra harass feature and don't need a buff.
Well, in WoL the problem was that in general Protoss already couldn't win an Air to Air combat with Corruptor/Infestor. It was plainly impossible, because the old VR was crap and the Carrier as well. (talking before fungal/IT nerfs)
So a Protoss could never ever ever ever have air superiority, which made it impossible to counter Broodlords besides Vortex or movement and fungal mistakes being punished by blink/storm.
The IT was a problem in a sense that a Protoss was already so shit set up against Broodlords and then on top of that the Zerg could insta create a marine army in the Protoss army which happens to be the exact counter to everything Protoss had against Broodlords (Stalkers, VRs, Carriers). With all the tools to counter Broodlords I think the ITs wouldn't be that bad. Though they'd seriously influence how strong SH based turtle was, if you could also throw strong ITs onto the Protoss ball.
Still, I never really like how the IT change was done. -3/-3 is just too much in the lategame imo and ITs were pretty figured out in the midgame. They should have done some straight dmg/HP nerfs instead of the upgrade stuff, e.g. just -2damage or -1damage/-10HP. As they are, it is even hard to just harass +2/+3 armor workers with 0/0 ITs. Or to kill a building that has a natural armor.
|
On November 07 2014 05:38 Grumbels wrote:
Can't we just get rid of spells like Neural Parasite and Abduct? They're too powerful vs massive units and they end up so weak (i.e. costly) you'd never use them vs smaller units. I don't like Abduct since I'm taking a physics course these days and it's too much cognitive dissonance, but couldn't NP be saved by rebalancing it to not work vs massive?
That's illustrative of the mentality of the SC2 Balance Team: all the abilities have the same effect in all possible targets. So for balancing, they have to stay as they are or be removed. No intermediate point. That's bad. Also, Neural Parasite has short range and requires heavy exposure to danger to be casted. It is used against massive units but also against spellcasters, and we shouldn't forget that. There is no reason to remove it, as it is potentially interesting in lategame. However, stun&pull mechanics destroy the lategame. That should be balanced. A tech is not supposed to work the same in different targets, that's why different units have bonus damage against different attributes. However regarding abilities that is poorly implemented in the game.
I think that the solution is pretty simple in this case, adding some shades to the mechanics of these problematic abilities. And it could be done really easily with the SC2 editor. This things have been stated many times.
- Fungal Growth doesn't stun Massive units. It could still slow them by an amount if wanted.
In the editor, exclude target validator Massive for the stun effect, then create a new effect only for massive units (copy the marauder one) and tweak the numbers at your will.
- Abduct should be less effective against massive units, being pulled less distance than light or armored units.
In the editor there is a value for Unit mass which interacts with the physics and pull mechanics. Possibly changing these values and maybe some force value in the Abduct ability/behaviour could get the change done.
- Neural Parasite should allow infestors to burrow once they have control of the unit. Lategame armies don't lack detection. Also you can see the tentacle, so finding the burrowed Infestor should be a joke. But 3 seconds of Neural Parasite could be really interesting.
In the editor, untick the Burrow command from the list of prevented abilities in the NP behaviour.
People, do you think that these changes could help balancing the game?
|
So your idea is to make fungal even worse against the units that it is already bad against?
|
On November 07 2014 06:38 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 05:38 Grumbels wrote:
Can't we just get rid of spells like Neural Parasite and Abduct? They're too powerful vs massive units and they end up so weak (i.e. costly) you'd never use them vs smaller units. I don't like Abduct since I'm taking a physics course these days and it's too much cognitive dissonance, but couldn't NP be saved by rebalancing it to not work vs massive? That's illustrative of the mentality of the SC2 Balance Team: all the abilities have the same effect in all possible targets. So for balancing, they have to stay as they are or be removed. No intermediate point. That's bad. Also, Neural Parasite has short range and requires heavy exposure to danger to be casted. It is used against massive units but also against spellcasters, and we shouldn't forget that. There is no reason to remove it, as it is potentially interesting in lategame. However, stun&pull mechanics destroy the lategame. That should be balanced. A tech is not supposed to work the same in different targets, that's why different units have bonus damage against different attributes. However regarding abilities that is poorly implemented in the game. I think that the solution is pretty simple in this case, adding some shades to the mechanics of these problematic abilities. And it could be done really easily with the SC2 editor. This things have been stated many times. - Fungal Growth doesn't stun Massive units. It could still slow them by an amount if wanted. In the editor, exclude target validator Massive for the stun effect, then create a new effect only for massive units (copy the marauder one) and tweak the numbers at your will. - Abduct should be less effective against massive units, being pulled less distance than light or armored units. In the editor there is a value for Unit mass which interacts with the physics and pull mechanics. Possibly changing these values and maybe some force value in the Abduct ability/behaviour could get the change done. - Neural Parasite should allow infestors to burrow once they have control of the unit. Lategame armies don't lack detection. Also you can see the tentacle, so finding the burrowed Infestor should be a joke. But 3 seconds of Neural Parasite could be really interesting. In the editor, untick the Burrow command from the list of prevented abilities in the NP behaviour. People, do you think that these changes could help balancing the game?
The problem with those changes is that they are nerfing zerg at a time when there is no reason to nerf zerg. Infestors are not a problem at all. They are used really sparingly already. Nerfing vipers is also a change that is not needed. Making the pull ability worse against big money targets (only ones it´s worth using against) Would screw zerg in the late game against meching terran and protoss. Super late game is already really hard for zerg to win against tempest and raven armadas.
Personally i think np is simply useless at the moment and burrow np would not change it really.
|
On November 07 2014 06:54 Big J wrote:
So your idea is to make fungal even worse against the units that it is already bad against?
Well, it's a proposition, trying to add some logic to the game. It's not needed. IMAO, the only needed change (of this ones) in the game design is Abduct being slightly less effective against massive units.
In the case of fungal, IMAO I would trade a bit of its efficiency aaagainst massive (lategame) units for better projectile speed. I think that it already works pretty okay in lategame situations, as it is far more easy to land against slow units.
However, it is true that at the moment there's no need to nerf Zerg at all. I agree completely. Some little buff regarding fungal could be even beneficial. I was thinking about design and logic, in the exceptional case that the game was more balanced. I also think that SH should be reworked to be a little bit faster and more dynamic to raid positions instead of being a turtle unit. Decreasing the mutation time of the Greater Spire and giving +1 armor to Broodlords are also good ideas, as they are not very viable and easy to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
